The Floor
Would the Security Council name a new Secretary-General before September?
Settled on 2 September. The room was wrong by a wide margin and the reasons are still here.
Concluded from · A Security Council recommendation forwarded to the General Assembly before 1 September.
Closed 19 days ago
21%
Named before September
79%
Not before September
59 points apart — the bar grows from even, in the direction the room leans.
Where you stand
The room's largest group answered "Not before September".
Answered as you did
—
Lead over second
59 pts
"Not before September" is ahead
Everyone here
1,390
64 changed their mind
How divided
Mostly agreed
agreed → even
| Answer | Share of the room | People | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Named before Septemberwhat happened | 288 | 21% | |
| Not before Septembermost | 1,102 | 79% |
Settled 2 Sept.
1,390 have taken a position · 64 changed their mind · 3 reasons
What people are weighing
- Two permanent members had signalled a vetoNot before September
- The regional rotation favoured a quick agreementNamed before September
- Every previous selection ran past its informal deadlineNot before September
What happened
The Council recommended a candidate on 28 August, three days before the deadline the room had written off.
The lesson
When every party loses face by missing a date, bet on the date rather than on the standoff.
The room was 79 per cent "not before September" and the Council recommended a candidate on 28 August. The reasoning that lost — two vetoes stood in July and nothing between July and September changes a veto — was a good read of the record and a poor read of deadlines. A veto is a position, and positions are traded in the last week when every party loses face by missing the date. The reasoning that won was Sofia G.'s in one line: deadlines that embarrass everybody get met.
The better course, in practice
- 1Before answering a "before date X" question, ask who is embarrassed if X passes. If the answer is everyone, discount the stalemate.
- 2Separate what the record says from what the calendar does to the people in it. The record was right; the calendar moved them.
How the room moved
Share of the room, 0 to 100 per cent · 1 Jun to now
How this one ended
Settles yes on a formal recommendation from the Security Council to the General Assembly.
Source: The Security Council's published record · expected by 2 Sept
The count closed when the world answered it. Positions can still be registered, and are kept but not counted.
What people said · 3
Every bubble carries the side its writer took.
Take a position above to add your view. You can read everyone else’s now.
Sofia G.@sofia_g· 11 Aug
Deadlines that embarrass everybody get met. This one embarrassed everybody.
Andrei V.@andrei_v· 12 Aug
Two vetoes stood in July and nothing between July and September changes a veto.
Sofia G.@sofia_g· 3 Sept· reply
Andrei, the vetoes did hold. What moved was the price of holding them into September, and prices move in the last week.
