[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In my community, we just had a school board election with 24 candidates
> running for 9 seats.
You were lucky. In Denison, Tx (my home town), we rarely have contested
races. No one wants to get so personal as to challenge an incumbent for
"his" seat.
> And it was quite difficult to give adequate
> consideration to each. I think 30 candidates, with all info available
> through ICANN's web site, might be manageable.
>
> However, let's say 83 candidates self-nominate for at-large seats.
Ain't gonna happen.
> ICANN
> then demands 25 emails of support to sustain each candidacy.
Too many. If someone is willing to submit to the process, we should
encourage them rather than make it so painful. In Denison, self-nomination
is all it takes to get on the ballot. I think that is enough for ICANN, as
well.
> And suppose
> 77 of the 83 declared candidates gather the 25 emails and thereby
> qualify. What do you do?
>
> You could raise the number of support emails to 100 or 1,000 in a second
> round, or you could declare it a 77 candidate election. I support the
> latter.
You will be lucky to have contested elections, the way things are going.
> COMMENT #13
>
> Principle 13 says that "ICANN may elect to provide online discussion
> fora or other formats for purposes of the campaign debate." I suggest
> changing "may" to "shall".
No brainer.
> ...I suggest we make an effort to avoid this situation by limiting the
> size
> of the allowable campaigns and providing space for campaign discussions
> through ICANN sponsorship.
Absolutely.
> COMMENT #15
>
> Preference seems more desirable than cumulative voting when a large
> number of candidates are involved. See
> http://www.igc.org/cvd/cvd_reports/1995/chp4/richie3.html for a
> discussion this matter.
How does "preference" voting relate to "proportional representation" through
a system such as STV?
>
>
>
