When I read Russia won a seat by acclimation, I had to look up specifically
what that means.

https://www.voanews.com/a/russia-loses-election-to-three-un-bodies-over-ukraine/7041887.html
Russia was elected to the Commission for Social Development by acclamation.
Russia was also elected by acclamation to the Intergovernmental Working
Group of Experts on International Standards of Accounting and Reporting.

Apparently it means they won by the loudest screaming at the UN?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/acclamation

Can that possibly be how they vote in the UN?
By noise level?

Den 08.04.2023 kl. 22.46 skrev badgolferman:

> When I read Russia won a seat by acclimation, I had to look up specifically
> what that means.

I think that every Dane knows what that is. I am member of a mandatory
group of house owners [1], and we hold an anual meeting to elect the
board and to agree on what we want done in our neighbourhood. The
members of the board, the accountant and such are usually elected by
acclamation because there are only one possible choice.

If two candidates had wanted the same position, there would be a normal
vote process.

It is not a questionable method. It is used when it is obvious who will
be elected. It is not a question of noise either. It is valid if a large
majority is applauding.

[1] All house owners have to join such a group, and all tenants in the
same building or building complex are members of a similar group.

--
Bertel, Denmark

On 2023-04-09 00:07, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> Den 08.04.2023 kl. 22.46 skrev badgolferman:
>
>> When I read Russia won a seat by acclimation, I had to look up
>> specifically
>> what that means.
>
> I think that every Dane knows what that is. I am member of a mandatory
> group of house owners [1], and we hold an anual meeting to elect the
> board and to agree on what we want done in our neighbourhood. The
> members of the board, the accountant and such are usually elected by
> acclamation because there are only one possible choice.
>
> If two candidates had wanted the same position, there would be a normal
> vote process.
>
> It is not a questionable method. It is used when it is obvious who will
> be elected. It is not a question of noise either. It is valid if a large
> majority is applauding.
>
> [1] All house owners have to join such a group, and all tenants in the
> same building or building complex are members of a similar group.

_All_ house owners?
Even those on a street with multiple single-family dwellings?

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 08:07:27 +0200, Bertel Lund Hansen
<gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> wrote:

>Den 08.04.2023 kl. 22.46 skrev badgolferman:
>
>> When I read Russia won a seat by acclimation, I had to look up specifically
>> what that means.
>
>I think that every Dane knows what that is. I am member of a mandatory
>group of house owners [1],

While your meaning is understandable, it doesn't work in English.
The group is not mandatory; membership in the group is what is
mandatory.

What you are describing is known the US as a "Home Owners Association"
or HOA. In some neighborhoods membership is mandatory and in some
neighborhoods the membership is voluntary.

It can only be mandatory to belong if becoming a member is a condition
when buying the house. A developer will build a number of houses in a
subdivision and require that the purchaser of a house become a member
of the HOA, pay dues to the HOA, and abide by the rules of HOA. The
HOA can impose fines on homeowners who violate the rules.

There are "deed restrictions" in those neighborhoods that require the
membership, and they apply to anyone who buys that house from a
previous owner.

If you buy a house that doesn't have such a deed restrictions, and a
HOA is formed later, membership cannot be mandatory.

>[1] All house owners have to join such a group, and all tenants in the
>same building or building complex are members of a similar group.

"tenants", in the US, refers to renters of an apartment, house, or
other accomodation. A tenant is usually bound by their lease
requirements rather than by an association.

Owners of condominiums are usually members of a condominium
association, and that is similar to a deed-restricted HOA in that it's
a deed restriction-mandated requirement.
--

Tony Cooper - Orlando,Florida

Den 09.04.2023 kl. 18.28 skrev TonyCooper:

>> [1] All house owners have to join such a group, and all tenants in the
>> same building or building complex are members of a similar group.

> "tenants", in the US, refers to renters of an apartment, house, or
> other accomodation. A tenant is usually bound by their lease
> requirements rather than by an association.

Sorry, I misremembered. Only owners have to join a group.

--
Bertel, Denmark

On Sun, 09 Apr 2023 12:28:19 -0400, TonyCooper wrote:

>>> When I read Russia won a seat by acclimation, I had to look up specifically
>>> what that means.
>>
>>I think that every Dane knows what that is. I am member of a mandatory
>>group of house owners [1],
>
> While your meaning is understandable, it doesn't work in English.
> The group is not mandatory; membership in the group is what is
> mandatory.

Can you explain in English what it meant that the Russians won by
acclamation to a body of the UN which, one would think is more formal?

On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 19:26:51 -0600, Ken Blake <Ken@invalidinvalid.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 09 Apr 2023 12:28:19 -0400, TonyCooper wrote:
>
>>>> When I read Russia won a seat by acclimation, I had to look up specifically
>>>> what that means.
>>>
>>>I think that every Dane knows what that is. I am member of a mandatory
>>>group of house owners [1],
>>
>> While your meaning is understandable, it doesn't work in English.
>> The group is not mandatory; membership in the group is what is
>> mandatory.
>
>Can you explain in English what it meant that the Russians won by
>acclamation to a body of the UN which, one would think is more formal?

The nature of the group - formal or informal - has nothing to do with
the use of "won by acclamation". Winning by acclamation means no vote
was taken.
--

Tony Cooper - Orlando,Florida