Succession in MSSA

Expressing his views.

When reviewing the USA's 2016 Presidential elections, many  people have been heard to say, "Really are those two (Clinton and Trump) the best that  America  has got?".

Should the truth be told no-one outside of the ruling elite of the Republican and Democratic parties really knows why the candidates were chosen, and which special interest groups  are being served.

But is this how all democratic systems work?

Certainly the system used by MSSA is a far better system.

Any Registered Player may be nominated by any member club. Thus even if a Registered Player is unpopular within his/her own club, he/she can still get another club to nominate him/her.

Thus in the 2016 elections, no fewer than 13 out of 25 nominations were made by clubs to which the candidate was not affiliated.

Not only that, but any amount of nominations may be made. There is no limit. Thus there are five (5) Registered Players who have been  nominated tor the position of Vice-President (Development).

Thus member clubs are spoilt for choice.

However, there are the positions where there is only a choice between two candidates, or even a few positions where  there is only one candidate. Even though there are some who believe that  where there is only one candidate, it is not really democratic, my response is that such persons do not really understand democracy.

After all the nomination system is open to  all members, if some candidates are 'lucky' enough to be unopposed, that is not the candidates fault, it is the fault of the membership.

That then, in essence, is MSSA's succession plan. It is up  to every club to train and develop Registered Players who are capable of taking over the various positions and thus help run MSSA.

MSSA can only be a strong as the sum total of its member clubs.