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.