[9966] in APO-L
Re: Election Procedures
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Johan Meijdam)
Tue Nov 1 10:21:17 1994
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 1994 16:21:20 +0100
Reply-To: Johan Meijdam <johan@PA.TWI.TUDELFT.NL>
From: Johan Meijdam <johan@PA.TWI.TUDELFT.NL>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L%PURCCVM.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
>> My questions are:
>> 1) How does your chapter conduct elections?
David Wallace answered:
> In the chapter meeting that we have elections, the floor is opened for
> nominations for the positions.afdter that is complete, the floor is
> closed, and the candidates are permitted to speak, then they are asked
> questions from the chapter, then they are escorted by the SAA out of the
> room, and general discussion is held on each candidate. When discussion
> is finalised, then we have a vote on each candidate by the raising of
> hands. Now, I am not suggesting that everyone work this way, but it
> does work for us.
Overhere in the Netherlands, the procedure is almost the same as
the one David mentioned. The differences we have, are:
* All positions are filled at once: The nominees are groups of at least
three people: one chairman, one secretary and one treasurer. This
ensures thinking about the positions in advance and a group of people
who can work together. Further, it eliminates lots of choices.
* After the question round, there is a closed vote: every member
(including the candidates) gets a piece of paper on which she or he
will write his choice. Thus, nobody knows who elected who. That
candidates have a vote is essential because they are members too, and
it is not certain they vote for themselves.
That we skip the discussion round is not a problem, because there are
only one or two serious groups of candidates arise. They have ample time in
advance to prepare themselves and to convince other members to vote for them.
This is often done in somewhat extreme ways, like my group of candidates did
last month (there was another group of candidates, so there was competition):
We asked the whole population of Delft to vote for us, with posters all over
the town and in the University Faculties, we put an advert in the University
Paper, borrowed a live goat from a farm nearby and put a leaflet in every
member's letterbox. In none of this, any information about our vision or
something like that was displayed, and none of that information was asked
during the questions round (we were prepared, however). The other group also
put some posters on some Faculties (one week later) and put a leaflet in
most letterboxes (two days later than ours), with a sweet attached (done
two years ago). The leaflet contained lots of information about their visions
and showed most people that the group had hardly anything new to offer. Thus,
they got all kinds of nasty questions during the question round.
Johan Meijdam,
Chairman of the Delftsche Zwervers.
