I liked that as I was able to vote for a number of people, including
some that have no chance at all of being elected. If we could only
vote for a few people I would then have to engage in grim
calculations, trying to be very careful when I really don't know all
those people very well. I think I would probably make some mistaken
votes in those circumstances and then have to live with them. Using
this approach I was able to vote for a wide variety of candidates
including some whose views differ from mine.
The thing is, the questions that we really have about arbitrators
can't be answered abstractly. You know something when you see them in
action in that role. It is very difficult to predict. Almost everyone
who ran might be a good arbitrator. Or might be a good arbitrator for
two weeks then we have to beg them to look at cases. One thing I did
consider very negative, lengthy and wordy responses to questions. I
can't stand written or oral filibusters.
Fred
On Jan 9, 2006, at 6:21 AM, Peter Mackay wrote:
I've just cast my eye over the voting process for
the ArbCom and I
have got
to say that it sucks. Every editor gets multiple votes, because
they can
support or oppose every single candidate. That's like a single
voter being
able to vote twice over in every voting district in the country.
The end
result will be a remarkably uniformly thinking ArbCom that has the
support
of a majority, while the minority will find that their views are
unrepresented.