[14731] in APO-L
correction
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joseph M. Fisher)
Thu Jul 11 21:36:10 1996
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 21:34:50 -0900
Reply-To: "Joseph M. Fisher" <jfisher@RacerX.mse.jhu.edu>
From: "Joseph M. Fisher" <jfisher@RacerX.mse.jhu.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
I did not accurately describe the voting process by which the convention
site is chosen. What happens is that the recommendation of the Time and
Place committee is brought to the floor and considered just like any
other piece of legislation. By amendment another site may be chosen.
However, the problem in Dallas was that none of the sites not recommended
by the committee could get a majority vote (which is not surprised since
there were four choices). So all amendments failed and the convention
was left with the original recommendation, i.e. Phoenix. The feeling of
some people was that Phoenix was chosen not because a majority favored
it, but because it was the only choice not rejected. Theoretically the
committee could have been reconvened to recommend another site, but the
presiding officer did not want to do this on account of time and at that
point I doubt very many delegates wanted to either.
To put it briefly, the procedure seems biased toward the recommendation
of the committee... since we must pass *something*, and very likely will
not vote in the majority for any of the sites, we are inclined to pass
the recommendation by default. In my opinion this is a concern worth
looking into.
I apologize for not getting it right the first time... just needed a
little reminder. :) Yesterday was not a good day to remember things... I
was under the influence of a reduced blood supply.
And for the record I did NOT fall asleep during the proceedings... nor
was I going to... I was just so sleep-deprived that the Nibelungied (sp?)
could probably have knocked me out.
-- Cyrano
