Posted by Todd Zywicki: Another Dartmouth Election: http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_05_03-2009_05_09.shtml#1241539514
Dartmouth readers will be vaguely aware that there is an ongoing Dartmouth election that ends tomorrow, May 6. There are two elements. The first is the election for the Association of Alumni Executive Committee, which is running unopposed, to reelect the incumbent leadership. I know it must seem like a strange system to some people to allow the alumni to vote for both the election and reelection of Alumni Association officers (unlike Alumni Trustees) but there you have it. The second is an amendment to the Dartmouth constitution that would change the rules for electing Trustees. 2/3 majority vote of all alumni is needed to enact the constitutional amendment. I've received a number of emails asking how I voted. On the AoA slate, I left that part of the ballot blank. The incumbent slate campaigned last year on the claim that they would (1) dismiss the lawsuit to enforce the 1891 Agreement and (2) restore alumni parity on the Board of Trustees through the process of negotiation. They did the first. I have seen no indication that they have made any progress toward the latter. Nor have they provided any coherent argument on how step (1) will enable them to accomplish step (2). Because no tangible progress has been made in restoring parity--a centerpiece of their platform--I decided to leave that portion of the ballot blank. On the referendum on the constitutional amendment, I voted "No." [1]Paul Mirengoff's excellent analysis summarizes my thoughts and I won't repeat it here. I [2]previously detailed the history of Trustee election rules at Dartmouth. The current system, designed to address the "petition trustee problem" is virtually identical to the system that prevailed prior to 1990 of promoting head-to-head elections. At that time the current multi-candidate approval-voting system was adopted to replace the prior system. Why? Well, to address the "petition trustee problem." Is either system better or fairer than the other? Probably not greatly, although as Paul notes, a strong argument can be made that the current system of approval voting is the superior system (my extensive review of the scholarly literature on voting rules tends to confirm this conclusion). Regardless, as the cyclical nature of the history on this issue reveals, the Dartmouth establishment obviously believes one system to be more difficult for petition trustees than the other, which is what motivates the proposals. Given that there is not a substantial difference in the rules, I think that Paul is right in saying that a vote for or against the amendment depends on completely different factors. This proposal is not that different from the proposal voted down by the Dartmouth alumni in a referendum three years ago. Why is it back now? Because the Board majority ordered the Alumni Association leaders to bring it back again to give the alumni the opportunity to vote "correctly" this time (think of it as being like a European constitutional referendum on the EU). If the alumni do not do what the Board majority wants them to do, the Board majority has threatened to seize from the Alumni Association the power to set election rules and the Board majority will impose its preferred rules by fiat. Paul thinks that voting for the amendment under this threat is a form of blackmail and that this constitutes continued alumni control of elections in name only. I agree, and voted against the amendmen on that basis. It must be acknowledged that there is a risk to this--if the alumni choose not to capitulate to the threat, the Board majority may very well decide to impose the rules by fiat. So the decision for the alumni, I think, boils down to whether they want to try to preserve real control over the election of Alumni Trustees with the possibility that the Board majority may retaliate by seizing control, or do alumni think it better to appease the Board majority in order to retain the formal control over election of Alumni Trustees. The Board majority obviously has put Dartmouth alumni in a very difficult position and this is a real Hobson's choice. By voluntarily dismissing with prejudice the AoA lawsuit to enforce the 1891 Agreement, the incumbent leaders of the Association of Alumni gave away the only real tool that the alumni had to preserve real control over Alumni Trustee elections. I voted against the amendment, but there are people I respect who voted for the amendment as the least-bad of the two choices. I won't recommend to anyone how to vote, I just tell you how I weighed these factors. Most of all, I urge Dartmouth alumni to vote--your rights are at stake. Information on the amendment and how to vote is [3]here. References 1. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/04/023424.php?format=print 2. http://volokh.com/posts/1157212982.shtml 3. http://www.voxthevote.org/ _______________________________________________ Volokh mailing list [email protected] http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
