Bad news for F1- Mosley may stay President beyond 2009

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aryan

I know Francois Fillon has been mentioned.

But please tamburello, we don't know all the credible people in the world. That's not how elections work. In a democratic system, candidates nominate themselves, and the electorate then chooses among them. The electorate doesn't get to "put names forward".

---

I didn't ask how elections work, just a simple who & why as to alternatives from those who don't want Max.

I thank you for supplying the name of somebody who has been mooted as a potential replacement, which is all I was asking....well, half of what I was asking, but since this is the season of goodwill and you haven't specifically put Fillon forward as your own champion-elect, I'll let you off the second part.

We may endlessly debate about the meaning of democracy, but IMO if it has become almost impossible for a certain person to lose his position (in this case Mosley) no matter what he does and despite large amount of dissatisfaction by people, then the electing system may need some revising.

But as mentioned, one problem is that we don't have a proper opposing candidate, who could have his own campaign and ideas to try to gain votes and support to eventually win the job. Hence we are not witnessing "proper elections" between multiple contenders for FIA's presidency. At the moment the debates are like Mosley vs anti-Mosley, but it should be Mosley vs the name of another candidate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jens

At the moment the debates are like Mosley vs anti-Mosley, but it should be Mosley vs the name of another candidate.

---

:up:

And ideally without a dirty coup. That requires the good sense of all involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

since this is the season of goodwill and you haven't specifically put Fillon forward as your own champion-elect, I'll let you off the second part.

---

Thanks :)

And if I was to put forward my own champion-elect, I'd say:

Jean Todt, Ross Brawn, Ron Dennis, Patrick Head, Frank Williams, Jackie Stewart and Roger Penske

would all, in my humble opinion, be qualified people to lead FIA*.

*If they ceased involvement in any business which might pose as a conflict of interest, including shares in teams, or membership of automobile clubs.

FIA should be lead by a person of the caliber and ability of these guys, who has gained respect during years in sport and also has been credited with successfully managing an organisation for decades.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aryan

FIA should be lead by a person of the caliber and ability of these guys, who has gained respect during years in sport and also has been credited with successfully managing an organisation for decades.

---

I think the field can easily be widened. As an 'off the top of my head' idea, how about someone like Lord (Paul) Drayson, a businessman and former British government minister who is also a keen competitor in sportscars? François Fillon falls into the same bracket of politicians with a deep motorsport interest. Yet you can imagine the predictable outrage from some quarters that would result from either man making what was perceived to be a favourable decision towards a British or a French team, given their nationality. Select a Dennis, or a Williams, even if they resigned from their current positions, and those accusations would only be multiplied were decisions to be taken that were perceived to benefit 'their' teams. The same, alas, is true of Jean Todt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

That is not the same as asking them to come up with the name of somebody who has put their name forward, since as we all know, nobody has.

---

One of the major reasons why nobody has put their name forward is the structure created by Max Mosley which secured his position as FIA President.

It has become increasingly obvious that there will only be a new FIA President when the current incumbent decides to step aside.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aryan

It IS democratic.

And yes, democracy is often ugly.

I think you misunderstand what democracy means. What I am arguing is true democracy. You are merely pointing out all the fallacies of democracy. It is an age old debate going back to ancient times. The same arguments we are debating here can be read in Plato's Republic.

Pure democracy, also known as direct democracy, is simply that: Rule by the Majority. In a pure democratic system, every member has equal votes. Yes, in this scenario, London will suck up all the resources of the UK (as many people would argue it has done).

Obviously, that is a fallacy in democracy, which means all constitutional systems have tried to balance it somewhat by creating artificial weights to be added to the votes. In America for example, the Founding Fathers decided on one purely democratic body in Congress (the House of Reps, in which states are represented based on their population) complemented by a very un-democratic body (the Senate, in which each state, no matter how big or small, has two votes).

In the Westminster style of government, democracy has been balanced by distributing electoral divisions ("seats"), which creates marginal seats, in which elections are then won or lost.

Both such balancing measures have their own faults: mainly creating safe and marginal seats and states. In the US in a presidential race, because it is not direct democracy (a simple majority vote) but a system of "electoral colleges", if you live in a safe state, say NY, your vote is pretty much meaningless. Same thing applies in a Westminster system: it doesn't matter if you are a Conservative in some northern parts of UK, or a Labour member in some SE parts: if your division is not marginal, your vote simply has no value.

The Royal Automobile Club of Victoria, of which I am a member, has about 700,000 members. The "Conseil Pontifical pour la Pastorale des Migrants et des Personnes en Deplacement" (Vatican's Motoring Club) has officially, 40 members. That means that in FIA's elections, members of the latter club's votes counts 17,000 times as much as my vote (and my vote probably has more weight than most Americans' votes).

This is NOT democratic.

Frankly, if you don't like democracy, and you would like to balance it so that "smaller clubs are not bullies by the bigger clubs", then that's your idea. Just because it sounds "fair" to you doesn't make it democratic. Remember, there is nothing fair in pure democracy: it's a simple rule by majority.

Moi? I'd rather stick to democracy, which as Churchill said: is the worst kind of government, except for all the other ones.

---

You are 100% correct.

I guess I'm using democracy as a subjective term, how I see democracy, and its place within a democratic society.

"My" version of democracy, I think is fair to say, is the rough definition of democracy within most western democratic societies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aryan

As a McLaren supporter, I would whole-heartedly support Todt in this position. I respect him as a manager, as a decision maker, and I trust his professionalism will rule out any bias he might have in favour of his former employer.

He has both been a racer (well, a co-racer), as well as running his own racing team, and now managing a big corporation. He has all the credentials that I believe the head of FIA should have.

Please don't equate our disgust towards Mosley to our support for our favourite teams. It has nothing to do with it.

---

I respect Todt, but would be deadly against him replacing Mosley. I think its fair to say the image of the FIA with regards to favouring Ferrari is harmful to them. And replacing the head with a former Ferrari boss, would just damage the image further. Even if he wasn't biased, the stigma would still be there.

But I'm also a believer in that your outlook on life subconsciously affects the decisions you make in life.

And one of the reasons I respect Todt, is for his good work, but I think part of that comes because of the passion he has for Ferrari, its part of him, and that alone, makes him totally unsuitable for the position of FIA head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PolePosition_1

I respect Todt, but would be deadly against him replacing Mosley. I think its fair to say the image of the FIA with regards to favouring Ferrari is harmful to them. And replacing the head with a former Ferrari boss, would just damage the image further. Even if he wasn't biased, the stigma would still be there.

But I'm also a believer in that your outlook on life subconsciously affects the decisions you make in life.

And one of the reasons I respect Todt, is for his good work, but I think part of that comes because of the passion he has for Ferrari, its part of him, and that alone, makes him totally unsuitable for the position of FIA head.

---

As some people have short memories, I will offer my ideal scenario again.

JT would be a great President of the FIA (as would Paul Stoddard or Dave Richards but may be too political).

However, to offer balance, I would have the FIA slightly more removed from F1 than it is now and Ron Dennis acting as a figurehead for a F1 working group in charge of enforcing regulations, making recommendations and representations to the FIA and responsible for managing a team of dedicated stewards and officials that attend GP.

However, it's all a fantasy but that would be my ideal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

I would have the FIA slightly more removed from F1 than it is now

---

I agree, and to achieve that I think the FIA President could be a figure entirely unrelated to motorsport. I think there should be Vice-Presidents responsible for each of the categories the FIA governs, largely because the role is far too wide ranging for any one individual.