From: sojacobson@mmm.com
Subject: Re: Why The NFB
Al,
As I reflect upon your comments and those of Stev Z., they remind me of 
the challenge we have as an organization to maintain some degree of unity 
with such a diverse membership.  In saying that, I am not saying that 
your thoughts regarding increasing democracy are that unusual, rather it 
is interesting how people who have a variety of viewpoints will see the 
very same issues or events in different ways.  Those who say that voting 
by affilliate allows for easier control by the leadership or the power 
structure are probably correct.  However, one must note that we voted by 
affilliate when we split, and I can think of a number of votes that were 
very close.  Having said that, though, I won't argue that fewer voting 
units are more predictable, and perhaps even manageable.
On the other hand, there are some real shortcomings in the one vote per 
attending member, too.  The attendance at a convention is very much 
skewed by geographic location, and by the size and walth of some 
affilliates.   My point is not that a pure democracy could not work in 
some way, but rather that moving toward a theoretical pure democracy is 
not necessarily a move toward real democracy.  When one discusses the 
control of the concentration of power, either here or in political 
circles in general, I never hear both sides of the equasion discussed.  
It goes without saying that we need checks on thos in power, but at the 
same time we need to permit effective leaders to lead effectively.  I am 
not saying that you opose that, but I don't see it getting due 
consideration, generally speaking.  Particularly in our culture, the 
culture with which I am most familiar, we solve problems by tearing down 
and rebuilding instead of fixing.  We don't like alcohol so we bring in 
prohibition.  When we find that doesn't work like we thought, we bring 
back alcohol.
> Maybe one of the best things we could do in this outfit would be to
> determine an efficient way to do individual voting at national convention,
> and see if at least a majority of the whole membership would be willing to
> adopt it.  I'm sure there are some folks who prefer the delegate system,
> which gives small affiliates the same vote as the largest ones.  I have
> come to think that, even with its problems, indivual voting would be the
> way way to make decisions.  And of course, a means of secret balloting is
> essential.
> 
> Al
> 
> 
> On 16 Apr 1998, Harvey Heagy wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > In a message sojacobson@mmm.com typed to All  
> >  s> Isn't the impact of your comments here that one really can't trust 
the 
> >  s> membership?  On the one hand, you are advocating for greater 
democracy, 
> >  s> while on the other you are saying that the membership should not have 
the 
> >  s> right or power to accept the recommendations of the leadership. 
> > I think what we are saying is that the convention should have just as 
realistic and reasonable a chance to reject the recommendations of our 
leadership as we do to accept them.  We are not anti national leadership; we 
support it when we feel it is cor
rect and oppose it when we feel it is wrong, but in recent years the deck has 
become too stacked in favor of the national leadership and it is getting 
worse all the time.  I wonder if we had electronic voting where each 
convention attendee could vote any 
issue up or down what would happen.  I think in such a situation the national 
leadership would do well to pass half its agenda.
> > 
> > Harvey 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
--
          Steve Jacobson
          National Federation of the Blind
          3M Company 
          E-mail:  SOJACOBSON@MMM.COM
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the 3M Company.
---
 # Origin: NFBnet  Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045)
---------------