Will called from the road. He, Courtney, Steve and the others are in southern Ohio right now, having circumvented the metro areas. They should be home in a matter of hours, and if they make it safely, we will have our vote for leader. We haven't really decided on a title yet, so for now that's what we're using.
The nomination method has been something of a problem. See, I have always had a problem with the way elections in this country worked before the fall. Not that we have much to worry about as far as special interests and that sort of thing go. But the council has had a lot of discussions about how we should view those who actively seek power. It isn't that wanting to lead is an issue in itself, only that human history is rife with examples of how badly things can go when the power-hungry get what they want.
If you have been reading this blog from the beginning, you saw how it affected someone who didn't even want it. Made them act crazy.
Yours truly, of course.
So, in the spirit of compromise, we came up with a solution. No one from the council wanted to take the job, which is probably a good thing. We are actually thinking that it might be a good idea to forbid anyone on the council from being a candidate in the future, at least when they are actively serving in that capacity.
Sorry, the solution. We decided that anyone who wanted to run had to have thirty signatures for a nomination, and that no one could sign for more than one person. That's all in line with democracy for the most part...but the other bit is that the council interviews every candidate at length, and reserves the right to veto a person's candidacy with a 2/3 majority. We actually haven't had to use that, but since we are all about doing what is best for the group without hanging on to the old ways of doing things, it's a good control for us to avoid trouble.
There was a lot of debate about whether or not to require a nominated person to run and thus serve as leader if elected, whether they wanted to or not. This sounds sort of bad, I know, very restrictive. But the idea has some merit. Anyone who actually managed to get nominated, pass the council, and win the majority is probably someone who has a level head, good decision making skills, and thinks on their feet well. In addition, it would give that person a lot of perspective on how difficult it is to run this place, to make the sort of choices we must face in order to survive and thrive.
And that attitude, one would hope, would persist well after a person's term of service is up. That it would spread a general sense of understanding to those a former leader encounters and talks to. In short, that each person who has done the job would act as an ambassador to all others, helping create a greater peace.
That was my hope, anyway. But in the end we voted on it and that idea failed. Maybe it will come up again sometime if this election gives us problems, but for now it's shelved.
Oh, and the last bit. Just like governors and presidents, our leader has a second in command that gets voted in with him, who will serve as leader until and ONLY until a new election can be organized and new candidates chosen. While some folks see this as unnecessary bureaucracy, it isn't something that is up for debate. We voted on it and we were unanimous, because there has to be structure, and someone to take the wheel in case of tragedy.
So that's it. I won't be going into details today about who the candidates are, as you wouldn't know most of them. And because I have been asked nicely not to give out any information about who our potential leaders are, even their names. I promise to report the results when we get them.
But I will say this: it will be interesting, any way it goes.