Mate, pull your head in.Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
Printable View
Mate, pull your head in.Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
Rightly so in my mind. I vaguely remember me and you having this argument at time, and we agreed to disagree. But just to pass my view across, why should the bigger motoring industries be able to bully smaller nations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
Fact that in all democratic countries (to my knowledge), all elections are decided by counties / wards won, and not actual people count, reinforces my belief that this method is the more democratic one available.
To give each motoring club (country) exactly one vote, irrespective of the size of the country's motoring industry or the club's membership IS NOT DEMOCRATIC.Quote:
Originally Posted by PolePosition_1
When Club Automobile du Burundi and the American Automobile Association each have one vote, there seriously is something wrong with the process.
How is having the same voting weight for every member not democratic? It would be undemocratic if some didn't have votes and others did, but the current system is surely the most democratic system there is?Quote:
Originally Posted by aryan
Maybe a new topic needs to be created for this, as this is a totally different topic, and can be pretty huge if correctly discussed.Quote:
Originally Posted by aryan
I disagree with you. By deciding on the power of votes pending number of members, you making those belonging to larger groups superior to those of smaller groups.
Say for example we adopted your policy to the UK election process. London has a population of 15million people (metropolitan area). Wales has a population of 3 million.
Yet Wales covers nearly 12 times the area of London. Bearing this in mind, if we adopted a policy of number of votes, rather than wards, it would create a huge amount of segregation, where London would totally suck up resources, and only work in the interest of itself, leaving the rest of UK to be starved of cash. Its simply not democratic.
And exactly the same principles apply within the FIA membership. If America had 500 times the voting power of a tiny member, the tiny member being a member would be totally pointless, as it wouldn't have any say in anything......and thats not democratic.
Those 20 largest clubs have a zillion members that had no idea they either belonged to the FIA or were being represented by them in the vote .
That's no democracy .
Now , if the club had sent me a form so I could vote , like all those zillion others , we might have a shot at a democratic vote .
But , alas , the coup failed .
Isn't it also worth pointing out that those who are anti-Mosley haven't come up with the name of a candidate who could do a better job?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Seems everybody is happy to criticise the incumbent without having the slightest clue as to how anybody could do the job as effectively but with a different approach.
Those who think that a less aggresive style of management approach towards F1 owners would get the results they crave, that somehow happiness and unanimity would suddenly burst forward, that the F1 bosses wouldn't run amok with the sport, are quite frankly inhabitants of cloud cuckoo land.
Anybody who thinks that Ron Dennis should be given the keys to the palace is evidently seriously disturbed.
I agree with you there, though various names have been suggested. I suspect what you mean is that no names have been put forward with which you agree, unless I have that wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
Heck, I'd love to see Todt in charge, but I can see full well why he isn't the best man for the job given his close ties to a certain beloved Scuderia.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
And that's my point....there is nobody who carries the political clout of Mosley who isn't already burdened by pre-concieved bias.
Mosley, as the man everybody loves to hate, is therefore the ideal candidate.
Agree with the first two lines — but is it genuinely the case that there is no-one else in the world better suited to the role than Max? If so, that makes him one hell of a human being, and I don't think he's that special.Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
Whatever happens in the short term, though, two things are clear. Firstly, thought has to be given to the Bernie/Max successions. Secondly, being the boss of a sporting governing body is a thankless task for anyone.