How Wilson Was Elected: A Case Study for Reform

It was not my intention to comment on her authority. She is often quoted as giving the General Conference, meeting in session, great authority. I balance those comments with the belief that she did nto believe that it always made the right decisions. She was as willing to say that the GC Was wrong as she was to say that it was correct. Some SDAs seem not to understand this.

Jeremy, it seems to me that our current system of representative elections, if properly done, has some checks and balances similar to the US govt, which direct membership elections lack. Nominating committees can and do discuss information that would be better not made public. The nominating committee vets the candidates, and the congregation then votes on these candidates. Unfortunately, the voting too often is a matter of rubber stamping. But if the opportunity to object to nominating committee reports is taken seriously, it gives members real say over who is elected. Iā€™ve seen it done - though not often enough.

interestingā€¦the parallel i see to the U.S. govt is really restricted to lawmaking, or policy, decisions, where Representatives and Senators vote on behalf of constituentsā€¦certainly policy that affects mainly Church workers should be voted on by delegates, who are also mainly Church workersā€¦

but U.S. Representatives and Senators, and even the U.S. President, are certainly elected directly by the peopleā€¦even the Electoral College is driven by peoplesā€™ direct votesā€¦when Congress certifies the various state results, itā€™s merely affirming what the people have votedā€¦they arenā€™t voting out of their own volition, and then expecting the people to accept their votesā€¦and U.S. Representatives and Senators know they will face their constituents on a recurring basisā€¦church delegates donā€™t face church membersā€¦they have no reason to feel accountable to their home churchesā€¦their appointments are a purely inside job, and many times, church members donā€™t even know who they areā€¦

Regarding church voting procedure, perhaps some reform is needed?
However, candidates that run as Republicans or Democrats (or other political parties) are vetted before the public votes. If there are several candidates for the same position, party members choose who will run in the general election. I think the nominating committee committee as playing the role as local officials vetting candidates.
At the local church level, the unfortunate reality is that there is a scarcity of candidates, rather then several vying for the same position. :slightly_frowning_face:
While many nominating committees are rubber-stamping sessions, I have been on committees that did real work - notably without a pastor. I was also able to see how Dan Jackson ran committees. No rubber stamping sessions for him! We need more people like him in leadership positions.

i definitely agree with you about Dan Jackson, who is Canadian, letā€™s not forget :slight_smile:

but if candidates are vetted by their parties, how did we end up with Trumpā€¦surely the GOP must have known that the manā€™s past was a problemā€¦and surely any serious vetting process would have uncovered evidence of law insensitivity, if not actual criminalityā€¦

but even if you see nominating committees as an analog of party committees, the point is that ordinary church members donā€™t vote on committee vetted candidates in the same way that ordinary citizens vote on party vetted candidatesā€¦i guess my issue isnā€™t so much about the vetting process, but the actual voting processā€¦i donā€™t think the case can seriously be made that when delegates, who are mostly church employees, and whom their home churches may not even know, vote for someone, that this is somehow the same as ordinary church members voting for someoneā€¦

This topic was automatically closed after 14 days. New replies are no longer allowed.