Jump to content

Why no mention/Important New Rule Change Proposal


Recommended Posts

that's basically the way it works now...

ohio, florida, and michigan choose who the president is.

That's ridiculous.Those states only "choose" the President because the rest of us all voted and tied (basically). If a candidate only campaigned in Ohio, Florida, and Michigan and neglected the rest of the country, they certainly wouldn't "choose" the candidate as all the rest of the states go a different direction.

That's like a basketball team that wins 96-94 only won because of the last basket. No they won because the first 47 baskets put them in a position to win with the last one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 647
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think the 9 should be elected from all the current World Class corps. Saying that only the top 9 get to is like saying only the Boston Red Sox and the New York Yankees get to make the rules for baseball.

I like that. Cross section could be implemented as well....like at least 2 have to represent non-finalist corps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's ridiculous.Those states only "choose" the President because the rest of us all voted and tied (basically). If a candidate only campaigned in Ohio, Florida, and Michigan and neglected the rest of the country, they certainly wouldn't "choose" the candidate as all the rest of the states go a different direction.

That's like a basketball team that wins 96-94 only won because of the last basket. No they won because the first 47 baskets put them in a position to win with the last one.

but, we are not being political

no no...not us

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the 9 should be elected from all the current World Class corps. Saying that only the top 9 get to is like saying only the Boston Red Sox and the New York Yankees get to make the rules for baseball.

I agree with your second sentence.

I will say again, though, that even voting for the 9 will have the tendency to create favored voting blocks and quid-pro-quo type situations. IF they want to go to a 9 member board, I see their reasoning for wanting to do so, but I would prefer rotating board seats staggered among ALL member corps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see corps outside of the top 7 agreeing to this, primarily Boston and Blue Knights, they're not necessarily top 9 locks from year to year. And I could see some other corps in top 7 be wary. SCV was 3rd in 2004, then 8th in 2005. A corps having an off year has tons of significance.

I would not have so much of a problem with this if I could say Cavies, BD, and Cadets might not be top 7 any given year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the big deal? It works for DCA, doesn't it? When only the big boys get to decide on things, everything is better-- or more traditional, or more fan-friendly, or whatever...

/sarcasm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see corps outside of the top 7 agreeing to this, primarily Boston and Blue Knights, they're not necessarily top 9 locks from year to year. And I could see some other corps in top 7 be wary. SCV was 3rd in 2004, then 8th in 2005. A corps having an off year has tons of significance.

I would not have so much of a problem with this if I could say Cavies, BD, and Cadets might not be top 7 any given year.

I tend to agree -- although I could see a corps who is in that 8 or 9 spot thinking "hey -- I'm in 9th now and in danger of falling out. If this passes I'll have more control over keeping myself in 9th" Just a thought..

Also, even if it doesn't pass, I think the damage is done to some degree just by the proposal itself. It sends the message to the lower corps that this is how the top few think and the future of the activity might well pass you by if you don't get on board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s interesting in a discussion about who should represent this activity in its principal decisions that some offer up the U.S. Congress as a positive example of representative democracy. Do you really believe that system yields the American people representatives genuinely free of influence so they can accurately represent the priorities of their constituencies?

I don’t. And I urge you to reconsider whether electing a nine-member board of directors for DCI would likewise provide the sort of genuine representation some of y’all aspire to have for drum corps. Electing that board would set up a situation where votes could be traded for influence and action. Is that what you want? Wouldn’t you want a board where membership isn’t subject to the influence of any group?

Think about this. Any eight corps right now could make a deal to vote for each other for the board on the condition that all eight support a ninth corps (who would also vote for the eight). At that point the deal is done. Nine corps are aligned in a voting block capable of protecting their position and able to enact whatever agenda the block selects.

With performance-based criteria, no such block can be guaranteed. The achievement of Colts or Spirit or Academy or whomever to crack the top nine puts a new and independent voice on the board, one not beholden to the status quo as nine elected members must be.

HH

Edited by glory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...