I'll vomit.

Poll please.

Who didn't see this coming? http://www.motorsportforums.com/imag...s/confused.gif

Is there any way, I mean ANY WAY, to get rid of this guy? Secret MI6 agents? Professional assassins? Matahari-like prostitutes... all have been tried, to no effect.

If his father had his resolve, Britain would be a Fascist country now.

It is funny looking back at the headlines this century http://www.motorsportforums.com/imag...ies/tongue.gif

Mosley set for 2001 retirement
Mosley heads off F1 'palace coup'
Mosley to seek another term as president
Mosley Will Stand For Re-election
Mosley to give up FIA presidency in '05
Mosley Will Not Seek Re-Election in 2005
Mosley Could Stand for Re-election
Mosley: It Would Have been Wrong to Quit
No opposition for Mosley in FIA election
Mosley plans quieter life in new term
Mosley re-elected as FIA president
Mosley not thinking of retirement yet
Mosley won't stand for another term
Mosley not ruling out staying at the FIA

As as been said elsewhere, the structure of the FIA is now such that it is nigh on impossible for anyone to stand against the incumbent. The architect of that structure is the incumbent!

It's difficult to see how Mosley could be deposed. Mugabee can only dream of the security the president of the FIA has.

Scenario:

The 20 largest clubs / countries representing over 95% of the worlds motoring members vote to remove Max.

Result:

Max wins vote 193 / 20

http://www.motorsportforums.com/imag...s/laughing.gif

There is only 2 ways to remove Max from the FIA.

1. In a box
2. See 1 again

Too right .

A man who has survived many "palace coups" , will win .

Nobody else , in this climate , will want the job anyway .
Until F1 becomes more relevent to our earth's future , it will bear ever more criticism for being so very extravagant , and Max , as the head of an organization built on the existence of a device at least partially responsible for the issue of climate change , will have a lot of questions to answer .
I wouldn't want the job .
Right now , I don't think anyone else will either .

Max will return un-opposed , poor sap .

It is yet again worth pointing out that not everybody unhappy about this is a 'Mclarenista', for not everybody bases their opinion on a personal bias towards or against one particular team. And you have conveniently ignored the fact that even ioan isn't exactly thrilled.

He won unequivocally...http://www.motorsportforums.com/imag...es/biggrin.gif


I think to replace someone will be something in right place once considered he is no longer capable of carrying the job over the shoulder, and not by means of teasing out someone's personal life...

Means we would have had medals earlier too... http://www.motorsportforums.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Mate, pull your head in.

Rightly so in my mind. I vaguely remember me and you having this argument at time, and we agreed to disagree. But just to pass my view across, why should the bigger motoring industries be able to bully smaller nations.

Fact that in all democratic countries (to my knowledge), all elections are decided by counties / wards won, and not actual people count, reinforces my belief that this method is the more democratic one available.

To give each motoring club (country) exactly one vote, irrespective of the size of the country's motoring industry or the club's membership IS NOT DEMOCRATIC.

When Club Automobile du Burundi and the American Automobile Association each have one vote, there seriously is something wrong with the process.

How is having the same voting weight for every member not democratic? It would be undemocratic if some didn't have votes and others did, but the current system is surely the most democratic system there is?

Maybe a new topic needs to be created for this, as this is a totally different topic, and can be pretty huge if correctly discussed.

I disagree with you. By deciding on the power of votes pending number of members, you making those belonging to larger groups superior to those of smaller groups.

Say for example we adopted your policy to the UK election process. London has a population of 15million people (metropolitan area). Wales has a population of 3 million.

Yet Wales covers nearly 12 times the area of London. Bearing this in mind, if we adopted a policy of number of votes, rather than wards, it would create a huge amount of segregation, where London would totally suck up resources, and only work in the interest of itself, leaving the rest of UK to be starved of cash. Its simply not democratic.

And exactly the same principles apply within the FIA membership. If America had 500 times the voting power of a tiny member, the tiny member being a member would be totally pointless, as it wouldn't have any say in anything......and thats not democratic.

Those 20 largest clubs have a zillion members that had no idea they either belonged to the FIA or were being represented by them in the vote .

That's no democracy .
Now , if the club had sent me a form so I could vote , like all those zillion others , we might have a shot at a democratic vote .

But , alas , the coup failed .

I agree with you there, though various names have been suggested. I suspect what you mean is that no names have been put forward with which you agree, unless I have that wrong.

Agree with the first two lines — but is it genuinely the case that there is no-one else in the world better suited to the role than Max? If so, that makes him one hell of a human being, and I don't think he's that special.

Whatever happens in the short term, though, two things are clear. Firstly, thought has to be given to the Bernie/Max successions. Secondly, being the boss of a sporting governing body is a thankless task for anyone.

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.

I don't recall Churchill being a firm advocate of proportional representation, though...

Even though the political party I vote for advocates proportional representation, I am not in favour of it in the UK for various reasons that aren't worth going into here. Maybe for the FIA, the importance of which isn't as great as parliamentary elections, it wouldn't matter so much, but I don't think it's necessary, because I still consider 'one member, one vote' to be perfectly democratic.

People will not put their names forward challenging an incumbent, when they know the constitution of the institution gives them virtually no chance of beating the incumbent. That's why Mosley has been running unopposed. He created the system, he knows it.

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.