Quote:You wouldn't have a clash of agendas. The delegate would be a trusted figurehead who we protected, who voted in WA votes, and updates the WFE. Obviously the person would have some political sway -- as Bels, SB et al. still do, whether or not they hold an official office.
Yes - and political sway can cause problems for a cabinet trying to pursue reforms and different policies than what "established" leaders have pursued in the past.
Quote:But, we wouldn't be handing over keys to the entire world so it would make fears of transition much less.
No, but the new concern would be a lack of transition - and not just change in terms of who is delegate, but change internally.
Quote:Please, Unibot. What you're really saying here is that those in a position of power don't get to know people. Understandable with your experience in the region, but I doubt you yourself wouldn't be able to name a few trusted individuals in the region.
I can name many trusted people, in no particular order and not exclusive...
Yourself,
Glen-Rhodes,
Rebelstopia,
Kringalia,
Belschaft,
Southern Bellz,
And a year ago, I would have included Hileville and Milograd. Here's the problem though: none of those people on that list are fit to be handed the keys to the delegacy for the rest of their active career. (1) People go inactive over time - you can say that we would just rid of them when they went inactive, but the reality is when a leader has been your leader for three years, you let things slip, and you keep letting things slip.. despite it hurting the region, (2) All of our trusted people are also people will strong beliefs - would they use their political sway to veto changes and pose a challenge for future administrations? I wouldn't rule it out, no offense intended to the people I list - I know if I was ever made delegate, I'd eventually become a right pain in the arse for a future President.
Quote:When the option is between 30 relatively active and informed members or 4500 uninformed members, I'm going to choose the former.
You're assuming that the region would continue to be uninformed if they were the voters. It would be in the best interests of all candidates to disseminate information to voters. Currently, they remain uninformed because it is in the personal interests of no-one to inform them about our candidates during elections ... and it is really not in the interests of any candidate to build platforms tailored for residents (since they don't vote them in).
Most of our region is left in the dark out of design, not out of apathy or a deliberate desire to be ignorant.
I believe people are themselves particularly bad at judging people, our judgement is flawed. This is why I believe both democratic and meritocratic systems usually get things wrong, because in both cases, they're a body of people, picking other people based on flawed or arbitrary criteria. The problem with a meritocratic structure, where the people who get appointed get appointment powers themselves, is that bad judgements multiply in meritocracies, whereas bad judgements get re-set with the next election in democracies. This means that the performance of meritocracies gets worse and worse, while the performance of democracies rises and falls in a consistent, predictable and stable fashion.
