[ SHOWGSD-L ] Re: Board nominees
- From: "MARGERY GOLANT" <mgolant@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 14:29:55 -0400
I have a great deal of faith in the voters - the voters are not the problem.
And, the candidates are not the problem. The problem is the situation that
arises is when there are many candidates, since, by definition in that sort
of scenario, votes get split up among them.
In law school, they often demonstrated points via hypotheticals So here is
a hypothetical to demonstrate mine:
A is a candidate for office. He represents a very popular and widely held
point of view, one which is shared by 60% of the electorate. A is opposed
by B, who represents a minority, unpopular position, one held by 25% of the
electorate. If the election consisted of only A and B running, the outcome
would be easy to predict, and the outcome would be a democratic one, where
majority rule prevails.
However, C and D also decide to run, and they are all good, honorable and
respected people, having positions similar to that held by A. Now we have a
potentially dangerous situation. Since A, C and D are all good and
respected people holding popular positions, there is a very significant risk
that that 60% who agree with all of them will be diffused among the three
for various good reasons. It is easy to see that if A, C, and D split the
60% of people who agree with ALL of them, each of them gets 20% of the vote,
while B, the person with the minority, unpopular position (the FL in this
case), gets 25% of the vote, and so B wins.. Therefore, the minority /
unpopular view prevails, and the majority view loses, which is never a good
thing, and which would be disastrous for the GSDCA.
Margy Golant
-----Original Message-----
From: showgsd-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:showgsd-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of ELG440@xxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 12:21 PM
To: showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ SHOWGSD-L ] Board nominees
In a message dated 7/10/05 8:25:01 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
mgolant@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
I believe I heard that a scenario such as that was how Fred Lanting was
elected to judge our National once upon a time.
When that election came about, a group of people got together to support
(he
who cannot be mentioned). I think an "open election" such as this gives
everyone a choice. When we had to elect a governor in California everyone
ran.
Arnold was elected, and he would have been selected even had there only
been
two or three candidates.
I have more faith in the voters. It is up to the members of this club to
do
what is right for the future of the club, up to the board to protect the
breed, the club and the members, and up to each of us to do the best we can
to
determine that future. I believe the voters will do just that.
Evan
============================================================================
POST is Copyrighted 2005. All material remains the property of the original
author and of GSD Communication, Inc. NO REPRODUCTIONS or FORWARDS of any kind
are permitted without prior permission of the original author AND of the
Showgsd-l Management. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
ALL PERSONS ARE ON NOTICE THAT THE FORWARDING, REPRODUCTION OR USE IN ANY
MANNER OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH APPEARS ON SHOWGSD-L WITHOUT THE EXPRESS
PERMISSION OF ALL PARTIES TO THE POST AND THE LIST MANAGEMENT IS EXPRESSLY
FORBIDDEN, AND IS A VIOLATION OF LAW. VIOLATORS OF THIS PROHIBITION WILL BE
PROSECUTED.
For assistance, please contact the List Management at admin@xxxxxxxxxxxx
VISIT OUR WEBSITE - http://www.showgsd.org
============================================================================
Other related posts:
