Elections Structure

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

I want to add that I think open discussions are a terrible idea and I hate them.

This. Unless it's an SEC redonkahuge chapter, you probably already have your opinions of the candidates formed, and nothing is really going to change that.

I'm a big fan of slating, and if the committe does their job right, it should be a one vote & done thing.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

This. Unless it's an SEC redonkahuge chapter, you probably already have your opinions of the candidates formed, and nothing is really going to change that.

I'm a big fan of slating, and if the committe does their job right, it should be a one vote & done thing.

Slating can mean a lot of different things. I think that the kind where people can't run if they aren't slated is a terrible idea, and I've seen it misused more than once.

I agree, though, that nobody is changing their minds based on open discussion.

In my mind, it's more like: candidates give speeches, 3 questions MAX, vote, revote if necessary.

Also, the year I ran elections, I asked someone to move to white ballot for the uncontested positions. One of the women was angry that she didn't get to give her prepared speech.