[ENnies] Three questions for everyone

[ColonelHardisson]

Edit.

 

[Mark CMG]

We have three incumbents and two non-incumbents (barring some huge upset in the final moments of voting). Without any change to the rules, we have a result that those who want a change to the rules hsould be happy with.

I agree and we appear to have a majority of people who'd like to see a policy in place that ensures that sort of result for future years. I hope everyone can see the logic in that.

 

[Mark CMG]

The voting process is the best way to discern people's wishes and I'm sure everyone will be satisfied with the results, if not as their personal choice, at least as the majority choice. I know I'm fine with that.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Edit.

 

[Mark CMG]

The integrity of the ENnies is in good hands judging by the candidates that I have seen in the running.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Edit.

 

[Umbran]

Edit.

 

[Mark CMG]

I'm sure the ENnies will be in good hands with any of the candidates who have applied winning a seat on the committee.

 

[Krug]

I'm all for new blood. I might be a little biased here since it does look like I am going to be that new blood on the committee this year.

Pah stinking ooze glob.. there should be rule against 'em.

 

[fusangite]

A question to Mark: if a majority of people voted for all incumbents, why shouldn't their will be upheld? Let's suppose, under your model, there are ten hypothetical candidates: five incumbents and five non-incumbents and they get the following votes:
I(ncumbent)1: 143
I2: 132
I3: 128
I4: 110
I5: 109
N(ew)1: 45
N2: 26
N3: 25
N4: 24
N5: 7

Let's suppose that your rules require that a minimum of two non-incumbents be elected. Under your model, the candidates receiving 110 and 109 votes would lose and those receiving 45 and 26 would win. How could this possibly constitute democracy? Why would anyone want a system in which a candidate could lose to someone with less than a quarter the number of votes received? What is this? The 1980s South African parliament?

Being a judge is about having people's confidence. The way you measure whether a person has a group of people's confidence is to ask that group of people. The people who should judge the ENnies are the people in whom we, as a group, have the most confidence.

In my own life, I have lost important, crucial votes when a lot hung in the balance and I have never lost my belief that democracy is the most appropriate way to choose ones respresentatives.

What belief system does your system of choosing judges represent? Myturnism? Newbyism? Tokenism? What principle is so important that it can trump democracy?