Hi, Mike!  Thought I'd jump in on this topic, for whatever it's
worth.
I quote the following from your message:
 HH> I have nominated people for office
 HH> before.  You know and I know that a
 HH> nomination unless it is supported by
 HH> the nominating committee will not pass and
 HH> I have been attending conventions since 1975.
Generally true.  However, this either means that the majority of
us are sheep -- something I do not see demonstrated either in
these echos or in committee or floor debate -- or the Nominating
Committee is basically in tune with the general political will of
Convention attendees and that convention attendees either due to
indifference or affirmation support the nominees.  Incidentally,
at Division level I have seen nominees with the support of
Division leadership get creamed in the final vote.
I attended nine national conventions from 1979 through 1990.  I
also don't remember a single nominee from the floor getting an
office of board seat.  There's doubtless more than one reason for
this, including (if memory serves) the fact that most of the
nominating committee members, perhaps nearly all at times, were
also the affiliate delegates whose votes were the ones that
really counted in contested elections.  This does not of course
make it inherently impossible for a nominee from the floor to
win, but it's a lot less likely than it is in a division or
affiliate in which the members vote directly (and only a few were
on the nominating committee, if there was one).
I don't remember delegate votes clearly being contrary to initial
voice votes.  I do remember voice votes being a lot closer than
the delegate votes turned out to be.  Over time, I became
unwilling to accept that the delegate system was the best we
could do.  I've thought that, cumbersome though it may be, an
ACB-style voting system would more truly represent the
membership.  Now, like my wife, I'm inclined to think that we
should vote at national conventions the way we do in state
affiliates:  one member, one vote.  I think at this point I'd
prefer the risks in that system to those in the current one.  I'm
by no means sure that I'd like the votes any better:  some I
probably would, others I'd probably hate.  But of course, that's
not the point.
Well, this is not the most thorough commentary on the matter, but
it's what I can do tonight.  Take care!  I'm interested in more
of your thoughts.
                               Al
--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 2
---------------