Elections

[workerscommunes]

Sacco and Vanzetti has suggested to me that it may be time to have our first proper regional elections. Does anybody have any suggestions concerning how we might set about doing this in the most democratic way possible?

[vequalsv0plusat]

Workers said:

Sacco and Vanzetti has suggested to me that it may be time to have our first proper regional elections. Does anybody have any suggestions concerning how we might set about doing this in the most democratic way possible?

My suggestion is that we informally elect someone by consensus, then put the matter to a popular vote; if we see that anyone's unsatisfied with the choice, then we'll have another round of discussion and voting.

[Watfordshire]

v_equals_v0_plus_at said:

My suggestion is that we informally elect someone by consensus, then put the matter to a popular vote; if we see that anyone's unsatisfied with the choice, then we'll have another round of discussion and voting.

that sounds pretty wrong in pretty much every way to pretty old me.

I'd suggest:

1 - post a thread on these boards for people to nominate themselves/others by a certain deadline. (this would also provide an opportunity for the prospective Delegates to make a statement of intent.)
2 - Decide on the final nominees for the post and a deadline for voting
3 - voting consists of people adding their endorsement to their choice of Delegate. (I'd prefer a poll on these boards to decide, but the endorsement method saves time as we want people to endorse the elected Delegate anyway.

[claptonpond]

W's suggestion sounds about right to me. Along with the recallableness thing that came up in that other thread.

[Sacco & Vanzetti]

I like the sound of that, Watfordshire's idea, plus the recall feature.

[Walter and Theodor]

I would like to see something between the two positions , v_equals idea looks good but very hard to implement but I think W's looks kind of too classically democratic.

I think we should nominate and then have candidate statements or campaigns, whatever, and then we should pursue consensus here on the boards and refer to good old fashioned voting when consensus cannot be achieved.

I agree that recall is a must. Could we establish the number of nations necessary to launch a recall? Should there be a minimum period in office or should immediate recall be available? I think one nation recall is too little but I could see an argument for anything else. I am assuming 'recall' here is the same as calling a new election? In this sense should 'terms' be indefinite and their termination would then be a matter of recall or resignation? Would a delegate who has not resigned be allowed to fight their corner for another period in office?

I know W's idea looks easier but I would love to try something different here. I suspect that we might actually find it quite easy to decide on a candidate and we may very well find ourselves expediting things very quickly.

[zigtag]

Well said , i concur.

[Walter and Theodor]

As I understand it the region is spanking new and these things have not yet been dealt with. I think your points are valid but they come without solutions.

How do you both propose to deal with the matter of the delegate? What should we do if conflict arises? If your position is generally anti-organization then perhaps that is the discussion we need to have.

[claptonpond]

Michelaccio said:

Mind you, I'm not against elections per se, if there's a point to them. Introducing new levels of hierarchy comes with a price--factions, cliques and rivalries tend to develop over time. Hierarchies also tend to grow. First, there is a delegate, then maybe a vice-delegate, then ministers, and so on. A pecking order develops. The vice-delegate expects to be promoted to delegate by virtue of her/his past service, and so on.

I don't think anyone's suggesting introducing any new levels of hierarchy here; just trying to sort out a procedure for dealing with the one imposed on us by the game.

I'm not entirely comfortable with elections either (tyranny of the majority and all that), but I don't see an obvious way round that in this case. And I think recallableness should help (although it could also lead to problems of its own).

[Loe]

As elections might prove difficult, i have an other proposal: In order to prevent anyone from having too much power and bypass the election problem, how about letting the job circulate among those who wish to have it... Maybe on a weekly basis???

Just a thought...

[FreeLandofAIM]

Nice idea Loe. ;D


Micehlaccio, the region and alliance is indeed new, so that is why this subject is still being debated over, and rightfully too.

I think Loe's is quite a good idea....

[claptonpond]

Nice idea, but we'd all have to remember to shift our endorsements every week (and know who to shift them to).

I'm actually beginning to think it might be best to just go with what's built into the game (as M seemed to suggest above). In other words, just endorse whoever you tend to agree with, or whoever's putting forward the most cogent arguments with regard to the resolution at vote. That way our weight in the UN would be proportional to our collective strength of feeling on any given resolution. We should still aim for consensus when discussing the resolutions, to help ensure we debate them properly.

[Walter and Theodor]

I don't want to be troublesome but someone who is not participating in the UN, thus has no vote in the UN is proposing to have a say in how those who are in the UN will exercise power collectively.

I have a problem with that.

It seems to me that people are assuming that the delegate is a kind of governor rather than a representative of the regions interests in the UN. I don't get why someone who won't be effected by the outcomes of the UN is interested in how the region votes. Perhaps there is a division of powers that need to be discussed?

I am not asking people to defend a position I am really actually curious...its only in this discussion that I suddenly realize that I don't understand why nations not in the UN should care about the UN at all?

If I am in a region that is going to fight for positions in the UN I don't want the voting bloc destroyed by administrative disorganization, and the lags of automatic delegate rotation or casual endorsements. I don't think anyone is proposing compulsory endorsement of the delegate, I think we are proposing that those who are engaging the UN should define the most effective form of engagement and that is a voting bloc.

For those in the UN we have already negotiated ideals versus practical realities. I think Michelaccio's idealism is valuable but not relevant to those who have decided to get their hands dirty in the murky authoritarian world of the UN. This headless animal that is proposed is unfortunately without bite as well.

[Walter and Theodor]

Fair point Michelaccio, I should have been less reactive and clearer that I don't object to your contribution. What I object to is that your contribution presents itself as as a rational evaluation of the situation but would effectively neutralize the contribution of UN members in the UN. In this way it makes UN participation in our region practically a moot point aside from the constantly detrimental passage of crap legislation that we UN members inevitably deal with. Thus your argument, while presented as pro-regional equality and cooperation, is actually, more simply, anti-UN.

I think what I am trying to clarify is that the delegate has nothing to do with the running of the region but everything to do with the contribution its UN members make to the UN. You are offering valid arguments about how heirarchies evolve but I think instead of hamstringing the regions activity in the UN to protect one specific view of anarchist politics (one not likely shared by all members of the region) I think we could all come to some agreement on the limits of the delegates authority or some alternative power structure that could mediate against the heirarchies that you believe will evolve.

Where I disagree with your critique is that if you abide by an anti-organizational rational then you are hamstrung as well. The catch-22 of it is why I think anti-organizational positions can only exist in a vacuum. I think that the moment we get our hands dirty with reality they become untenable. One has to organize to counter-balance the structural relations that individuals are powerless against. Otherwise we are swept away by them and left with nothing but our theories.

[Loe]

I have just resigned from the UN.

Miccelacio, your anti-organizational points made me come to a decision I have been pondering for days.

As I´m quite sure there are more authoritarian and
conservative ellements in the UN than anarchistic, I think that the trade-off between influence in the UN and UN´s influence in my nation is a poor one for FNR.

Concerning your "getting your hands dirty point Walter and Theodore, I am of the oppinion that organizing in structures is bound to lead to power concentration. This is something we in the FNR don´t accept. We are of the oppinion that humans are weak, selfish animals, and that any concentration of power will corrupt the ones beeing enpowered.

We cannot, as far as we interpet the struggle in FNR, resort to burgeoise methods in order to win!!! This will betray the revolution before it is fulfilled!!!!!!

Thats what we have come to think in the FNR anyway...

Peace out!