Mick Norris wrote:
Richard Bates wrote:A vote for NOTA would be particularly ridiculous in this election. When given a choice between "steady as she goes" and a radical shake-up, what exactly is the third option that people would be looking for? "Steady as she doesn't go"? Someone a bit like Andrew Paulson, just not actually Andrew Paulson?
There might be a third way, between steady as she goes (=stagnation) and radical shake-up (=chaos) - possibly a ceremonial president who leaves the CEO to run the ECF with the board ....
I would think that the reason for a NOTA vote is fairly obvious. I've no idea whether 'Steady as she goes' is a fair description of one candidate - but certainly I've not seen much to contradict that. On the other hand, while 'radical shake-up' would be considered a reasonable summary of the other candidate by some, it wouldn't be agreed by all.
It seems fairly clear that AP is simply not trusted by some chessers. The assumption that he must have some undeclared motive for wanting to be ECF President appears to be shared by a fair few people. Also, although I've not seen it written or said any where yet, maybe some folk feel there's a potential (or even actual) conflict of interest between running an election campaign based on closer engagement with FIDE and having a business relationship with FIDE.
Another third option, then: radical shake up led by somebody who is trusted.
I know that not everybody feels this way about AP. Some people do, though, and some of those won't be keen on the other candidate - perhaps because they see him as a 'no change' option. Hence: NOTA.