Skip to main content

View Diary: The VRWC at Dartmouth and beyond (224 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I didn't get into it much, (0+ / 0-)

    because the post was long enough as it was, but I agree in part.  Personally, I think Dartmouth needs a larger board of trustees rather than one less democratically elected.

    But right now the thing is to stop the power grab.

    •  Well, okay, but (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      N in Seattle

      what is the voter turnout for college trustee elections? I'm guessing they have lower - and much more skewed - participation rates than any other institution.

      Historically - educated guess only! - the trustees were nominated by the existing Board, often in conjunction with endowments, and the alumni vote was a formality.

      •  Right. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        N in Seattle, mataliandy, Sharpner

        What's changed is that this organized group has been putting up petition candidates to challenge the regular candidates, and they've been organizing to turn out the vote. So right now, the need is for counter-organization. In the long term, I'm not willing to argue against democracy, though we have to recognize that Dartmouth is a special case given the extremely high proportion of elected trustees. I think that steps need to be taken to stabilize the composition of the board and guard against organized takeovers by small groups of extremists, but that that could be a question of increasing the size of the board, and maybe reducing terms served to one rather than allowing two.

        •  I've also been wondering about vote security (0+ / 0-)

          Because the last few trustee elections have been conducted using online voting I've been wondering whether there's also been some vote manipulation through that election system.  I remember noticing with the online voting that I was not signing in through an encrypted web site, but  maybe I didn't pick up on all those details because I'm not a web designer.  

          "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself." -FDR

          by jbro on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:52:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  they were using "approval voting" back then (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            hilllady

            You could vote for as many or as few people as you wanted.  The wingers, of course, had a network to tell them exactly who to vote for, while the rest of us uninformed alums just scattered our votes everywhere (if we even voted).

            The way to win is not to move to the right wing; the way to win is to move to the right policy. -- Nameless Soldier

            by N in Seattle on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:14:27 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Um... doesn't make sense (0+ / 0-)

              If you have approval voting then you just approve all the recommended candidates and you are done.

              There is no issue of "scattering your votes everywhere".

              •  sure there is (0+ / 0-)

                If I and others vote for everyone, it's exactly the same as if we voted for no one.  But the wingnuts vote only for their slate, and they thereby win.

                Until this year, there wasn't much of an effort to differentiate candidates from each other in the general-distribution information sent to alumni.

                The way to win is not to move to the right wing; the way to win is to move to the right policy. -- Nameless Soldier

                by N in Seattle on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:28:49 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site