View Poll Results: What is your ranking of the three FIDE Presidential candidates?

Voters
14. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1. Dvorkovich 2. Makropolous 3. Short

    1 7.14%
  • 1. Dvorkovich 2. Short 3. Makropoulos

    0 0%
  • 1. Dvorkovich, no second preference

    2 14.29%
  • 1. Makropoulos 2. Dvorkovich 3. Short

    0 0%
  • 1. Makropoulos 2. Short 3. Dvorkovich

    0 0%
  • 1. Makropoulos, no second preference

    1 7.14%
  • 1. Short 2. Dvorkovich 3. Makropoulos

    3 21.43%
  • 1. Short 2. Makropoulos 3. Dvorkovich

    2 14.29%
  • 1. Short, no second preference

    5 35.71%
  • Can't support any

    0 0%
Page 12 of 18 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 166 to 180 of 269
  1. #166
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,381
    Quote Originally Posted by Bulldozer View Post
    I believe that if there are more than two candidates, then the procedure is the same as with two candidates - absolutely nothing changes (if we are talking about the FIDE President elections). Ignore everything after "thereafter" - it cannot be applied to the FIDE President elections - it's for elections for more than one vacant position.
    That is very far from clear. It says "offices or office". Offices is plural, office is singular. There is no indication it is only for multiple vacancies - if anything the use of the singular form as well as the plural form suggests otherwise.

    And this isn't the Vatican. They can't keep voting over and over again until someone gets a majority and then they let the smoke out of the chimney. The voting procedure is very slow because they have to roll-call each delegate who has to come up, sign and take a ballot paper and vote. In Tromso they had only two screens to vote behind. Takes hours. They can't keep doing it dozens of times, especially with so many minor positions to elect. Electing all the positions in Tromso took days.

    Also, the regulations seem quite sexist:

    Should be at least one woman and at least one man.
    We'll worry about that when FIDE gets an all-female ticket. In a sport that's 94% male I don't think there's a lot to be concerned about!

  2. #167
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,022
    Shaun Press has commented on his blog about the Fide Presidential election and three cornered contest. His view is here: https://chessexpress.blogspot.com.au...into-ring.html

    My summary: Two rounds of voting and whoever gets the most votes in the second round is the winner, even if in the second round the candidate with the most votes does not have 50% or more. Also, no candidate is eliminated in the first round of voting, unless one candidate receives more than 50 per cent.

    So, for three or more candidate elections. The Fide Presidential elections are just like a lot of items in Fide, a terrible way to do things.

    The candidate that runs third in the first round of voting, could end up becoming President in the second of voting depending on who ends up leading after the first round of votes.

  3. #168
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,381
    Quote Originally Posted by Garvinator View Post
    The candidate that runs third in the first round of voting, could end up becoming President in the second of voting depending on who ends up leading after the first round of votes.
    I do think that's an unlikely scenario. But it could happen if the candidate in third is the most "moderate" between two extremes.

    We have to remember that many FIDE delegates come from places where they do not have preferences, and some come from places where they do not even have voting.

  4. #169
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wynyard,Tas
    Posts
    2,110
    Has there been an election for something else with one position and three (or more) candidates in recent memory - that should give an indication of what the system is understood to be, assuming it's the same for every position. Or has it always been a straight two-horse race for everything?

  5. #170
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,381
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Rout View Post
    Has there been an election for something else with one position and three (or more) candidates in recent memory - that should give an indication of what the system is understood to be, assuming it's the same for every position. Or has it always been a straight two-horse race for everything?
    I don't remember any such case in Tromso. The electoral regulations were overhauled in about 2012 so I am not sure how far back they go.

  6. #171
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    That is very far from clear. It says "offices or office". Offices is plural, office is singular. There is no indication it is only for multiple vacancies - if anything the use of the singular form as well as the plural form suggests otherwise.
    The statement with the singular form covers only the first round.
    There is an implicit indication of multiple vacancies - the word "thereafter", which, I think, means "after that" in this context - after one candidate has been elected (see the previous sentence). This means the election continues after one candidate has already been elected, which suggests multiple vacancies. So, the "soft" second round rules apply only in this case - not for the President elections.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    And this isn't the Vatican. They can't keep voting over and over again until someone gets a majority and then they let the smoke out of the chimney. The voting procedure is very slow because they have to roll-call each delegate who has to come up, sign and take a ballot paper and vote. In Tromso they had only two screens to vote behind. Takes hours. They can't keep doing it dozens of times, especially with so many minor positions to elect. Electing all the positions in Tromso took days.
    Yes, but I don't care much how they interpret the rules and actually vote. Maybe they should keep voting until only one candidate is alive. I'm having fun in finding holes in the law.

  7. #172
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,381
    Quote Originally Posted by Bulldozer View Post
    The statement with the singular form covers only the first round.
    There is an implicit indication of multiple vacancies - the word "thereafter", which, I think, means "after that" in this context - after one candidate has been elected (see the previous sentence). This means the election continues after one candidate has already been elected, which suggests multiple vacancies. So, the "soft" second round rules apply only in this case - not for the President elections.
    But even when there are multiple offices it's possible that no candidates would receive 50% plus one on the first round. All the wording does is guarantee that those who do receive 50% plus one on the first round will be elected at that point.

    I'm having fun in finding holes in the law.
    Finding cases of vague or ambiguous wording with FIDE regulations is often easy.

    Here are some cases of defects in the current wording:

    * For multiple positions (eg five Vice-Presidents) the system that was used in Tromso was that you vote for up to five candidates (X or tick or + in the box). If 35% of voters vote for candidates 1,2,3,4,5 and 30% vote for 1,2,3,6,7 and 35% vote for 4,5,6,7,8 then this system "elects" more candidates than they want. So they need a provision to deal with that.

    * The "50% plus one" should be "50% rounded down to the nearest whole number plus one". Otherwise someone who gets 51/101 is not elected on the first round although 51/101 is an absolute majority.

    The purpose of the wording "For all elections a majority of the votes cast, not counting abstentions, shall be required. If there is a tie, the voting is repeated until the tie is broken. " seems to be simply to ensure that ties are broken by a re-vote. The fact that it literally contradicts everything that comes after is just sloppy drafting, which is normal.
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 12-05-2018 at 02:09 PM.

  8. #173
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    But even when there are multiple offices it's possible that no candidates would receive 50% plus one on the first round. All the wording does is guarantee that those who do receive 50% plus one on the first round will be elected at that point.
    "Thereafter" in the following statement makes a big difference. Remove it, and I would agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    * For multiple positions (eg five Vice-Presidents) the system that was used in Tromso was that you vote for up to five candidates (X or tick or + in the box). If 35% of voters vote for candidates 1,2,3,4,5 and 30% vote for 1,2,3,6,7 and 35% vote for 4,5,6,7,8 then this system "elects" more candidates than they want. So they need a provision to deal with that.
    A nice find.
    I would say it's a tie, so they already have a provision: "the voting is repeated until the tie is broken".

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    * The "50% plus one" should be "50% rounded down to the nearest whole number plus one". Otherwise someone who gets 51/101 is not elected on the first round although 51/101 is an absolute majority.
    Oh, it's an amazing find. The rule is very common, I saw it many times but didn't realise until now that it was wrong. 2 votes out of 3 wouldn't be enough because 3/2 + 1 is more than 2.
    A simpler correct version could be "50% plus half a vote", or "more than half of total", or simply "majority".

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    The purpose of the wording "For all elections a majority of the votes cast, not counting abstentions, shall be required. If there is a tie, the voting is repeated until the tie is broken. " seems to be simply to ensure that ties are broken by a re-vote. The fact that it literally contradicts everything that comes after is just sloppy drafting, which is normal.
    To me, there is no literal contradiction. All wording of 3.7 makes sense but the sense is bizarre.
    Last edited by Bulldozer; 13-05-2018 at 01:39 AM.

  9. #174
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,381
    Quote Originally Posted by Bulldozer View Post
    "Thereafter" in the following statement makes a big difference. Remove it, and I would agree.
    I don't see why. The first part says anyone who has >50% is elected on the first round. The "thereafter" part says what you do with the remaining unfilled places, provided there are still vacant places (if there are no remaining vacancies it doesn't apply). It could be that all the places are still vacant.

    A nice find.
    I would say it's a tie, so they already have a provision: "the voting is repeated until the tie is broken".
    The tie provision is really messy. It seems to be intended for two-candidate contests, eg if the two candidates finish on 74 votes each, and the point of it is to specify that you have a re-vote, rather than selecting the winner randomly which is another common solution. What it is meant to mean for multi-candidate contests where some candidates are tied and others are not is highly unclear.

    In my example 7 candidates have a majority of votes in a contest for 5 places and five of them are tied for positions 3-7. Of course I could have given a similar example with no ties, or with no ties that cut across positions 5 and 6.

  10. #175
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wynyard,Tas
    Posts
    2,110
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    The tie provision is really messy. It seems to be intended for two-candidate contests, eg if the two candidates finish on 74 votes each, and the point of it is to specify that you have a re-vote, rather than selecting the winner randomly which is another common solution. What it is meant to mean for multi-candidate contests where some candidates are tied and others are not is highly unclear.
    Could it be that "a tie" is, in the original language, "there is no winner" (as in nobody has over 50%), which was then rendered into English as the more specific "a tie"?

  11. #176
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    10,263
    I am still waiting for response to the question. 1) Whom will Australia Support ..and if its not known yet - what is the process for deciding whom to support?
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  12. #177
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,022
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    what is the process for deciding whom to support?
    ACF Council vote, either by email or phone hook up during the ACF Council meeting.

  13. #178
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,381
    I don't think Council would make any decision until the date for nomination has closed and all the tickets are known. It's possible a decision would be made at the July meeting, or later.

    As well as deciding whether to publicly declare support for a candidate, Council has many options in terms of the guidance it gives the Delegate (currently me) on how to vote. It can direct or recommend or give a partial direction (for example). This might become important if there is a three-cornered contest.

  14. #179
    CC FIDE Master Metro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    840
    FIDE Money Transferred To Fiduciary Accounts

    https://www.chess.com/news/view/fide...ciary-accounts

  15. #180
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    10,263
    Quote Originally Posted by Metro View Post
    FIDE Money Transferred To Fiduciary Accounts

    https://www.chess.com/news/view/fide...ciary-accounts
    Wondering why chess authorities are ''above law'' - FIFA got investigated, so did many other international sporting bodies - but FIDE is somehow still holding on...
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. FIDE World Champs Carlsen vs Karjakin, New York, 11-30 Nov 2016 [POLL ADDED]
    By Kevin Bonham in forum Overseas Tournament News and Results
    Replies: 242
    Last Post: 17-12-2016, 02:12 AM
  2. US Presidential Election - Clinton v Trump
    By Agent Smith in forum Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 16-07-2016, 10:43 AM
  3. Replies: 690
    Last Post: 04-10-2014, 11:43 PM
  4. FIDE president election 2010
    By Igor_Goldenberg in forum General Chess Chat
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 30-09-2010, 11:11 PM
  5. who is world champion? (POLL ADDED)
    By cafman in forum General Chess Chat
    Replies: 86
    Last Post: 19-11-2005, 10:31 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •