Eighth straw poll to select the next UN Secretary-General

By Javier Surasky

Grynspan moves closer, while the vetoes remain hidden

The seventh straw poll had left us with a paradox: the race to become the next United Nations Secretary-General seemed to be moving closer to a decision, at least by the numbers. Yet it was becoming harder to assess politically, because the Security Council had returned to ballots that did not distinguish between permanent and non-permanent members.

The eighth straw poll, held on November 5, takes this situation a step further. Rebeca Grynspan reaches twelve encouragement votes and reduces her discouragements to three, while Rafael Grossi remains on nine encouragements, Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett on eight, and Lana Nusseibeh on seven. Support appears to be increasingly concentrated around one candidate, but we still do not know whether her discouragement votes came from permanent members.

There is also a new contender. Türkiye nominated Feridun Hadi Sinirlioğlu on November 1, and he took part in the eighth poll just four days later.

For the second consecutive round, the Council used undifferentiated ballots. We therefore return to our combinatorial indicator for reducing uncertainty, which now reveals an interesting development: as Grynspan gains support, the range of possible vote distributions in which none of her discouragements would come from the P5 also expands.

Are we seeing the beginnings of a decision, or simply more support accumulating without overcoming opposition from permanent members? That is the central question, because a single negative vote from a permanent member can change everything. And signals from several P5 capitals suggest that they have yet to find a candidate they consider sufficiently suitable (see https://tass.com/politics/2213115 and https://www.politico.com/news/2026/10/09/trump-un-chief-candidates-01115653).

The results of the eighth straw poll

The November 5 poll produced the following results:

Candidate	Encourage	Discourage	No opinion
Rebeca Grynspan	12	3	0
Rafael Grossi	9	4	2
Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett	8	5	2
Lana Nusseibeh	7	6	2
Olara Otunnu	4	9	2
Feridun Hadi Sinirlioğlu	3	8	4
María Fernanda Espinosa Garcés	3	10	2
Ivonne A-Baki	1	14	0

Source: 1 for 8 Billion.

To assess what changed in this round, we should compare only the seven candidates who took part in both polls. Sinirlioğlu is appearing for the first time, so there is no previous result against which to measure his performance.

Candidate	7th poll (E-D-N)	8th poll (E-D-N)	Change (E-D-N)
Rebeca Grynspan	11-4-0	12-3-0	+1 / −1 / 0
Rafael Grossi	9-4-2	9-4-2	0 / 0 / 0
Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett	8-6-1	8-5-2	0 / −1 / +1
Lana Nusseibeh	7-6-2	7-6-2	0 / 0 / 0
Olara Otunnu	4-11-0	4-9-2	0 / −2 / +2
María Fernanda Espinosa Garcés	2-10-3	3-10-2	+1 / 0 / −1
Ivonne A-Baki	1-14-0	1-14-0	0 / 0 / 0

Source: Own

A few things stand out.

Grynspan is the only candidate among the frontrunners to gain an additional encouragement vote. Grossi, Rodrigues-Birkett, and Nusseibeh hold on to their support, although Rodrigues-Birkett receives one fewer discouragement.

Across the seven comparable candidacies, the totals move from 42 encouragements, 55 discouragements, and eight “no opinion” votes to 44, 51, and ten, respectively.

There is an improvement, but it remains modest.

Including Sinirlioğlu, the eighth poll produces 47 encouragements, 59 discouragements, and fourteen “no opinion” votes. These figures describe the current field of eight candidates, but they should not be compared directly with the seven-candidate totals from the previous round.

Back to the uncertainty indicator

In the sixth straw poll, the colored ballots had shown that Grynspan, Grossi, and Rodrigues-Birkett each received two discouragement votes from permanent members. The seventh poll concealed that information again, and the eighth provides no further clarity. We therefore return to the indicator used in the earlier rounds, which measures the proportion of possible vote distributions in which none of a candidate's discouragements would come from the five permanent members.

The model considers the possible combinations of votes in a fifteen-member Council, with ten elected members and five permanent members. It is not a statistical estimate of how States actually vote, nor does it assign candidates a probability of being vetoed.

The figures for the eighth straw poll are:

Candidate	Discouragements	Share of possible distributions with no P5 discouragements
Rebeca Grynspan	3	26.37%
Rafael Grossi	4	15.38%
Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett	5	8.39%
Lana Nusseibeh	6	4.20%
Olara Otunnu	9	0.20%
Feridun Hadi Sinirlioğlu	8	0.70%
María Fernanda Espinosa Garcés	10	0.033%
Ivonne A-Baki	14	0%

Source: author's calculations.

In the seventh straw poll, Grynspan had four discouragements, and our indicator stood at 15.38%. Now, with three discouragements, it rises to 26.37%, meaning that in just over a quarter of the possible distributions, no P5 member would be blocking her appointment. This is her highest figure so far, but still too low to be considered a strong indication: in almost three-quarters of the distributions covered by our model, at least one discouragement comes from the P5.

The change matters because it increases the number of possible distributions consistent with no P5 discouragements. But we cannot conclude that the opposition of the two permanent members who discouraged her on October 16 has disappeared.

We know that her total number of discouragements has fallen. We still do not know who changed position.

Grynspan extends her lead

Rebeca Grynspan records her best result since the process began: twelve encouragements, three discouragements, and no “no opinion” votes.

Compared with the seventh poll, she gains one encouragement and receives one fewer discouragement. This is consistent with a vote shifting from “discourage” to “encourage,” although the aggregate figures do not tell us whether a single member changed position or several members made different moves.

The Costa Rican candidate is now three votes above the nine-vote threshold required for a possible Security Council recommendation. She also widens the gap with Grossi, who remains on nine.

By the numbers, her lead is clearly growing stronger.

The political question remains the same: we need to know whether she meets the second requirement for a Council recommendation, namely, that no permanent member votes against her. Grynspan's twelve encouragements alone do not establish that this condition is met. On the contrary, public reports suggest that some P5 members are unhappy with her candidacy. I have also received unofficial information from a source who assures me that at least one of her three discouragement votes comes from a permanent member, and possibly two. If that is the case, nothing has changed in this respect since the colored ballots were used.

Grynspan is now clearly the best-positioned candidate, but we cannot say that she has secured the conditions needed for a recommendation.

Grossi remains on nine

Rafael Grossi records exactly the same result as in the seventh poll: nine encouragements, four discouragements, and two “no opinion” votes. His candidacy remains at the nine-vote threshold, but he falls further behind Grynspan.

With four discouragements, Grossi has a 15.38% share of possible distributions in which none of the negative votes came from the P5, unchanged from the previous round. It is worth recalling that the colored ballots in the sixth round revealed two discouragements from permanent members and one “no opinion” vote within the P5.

Rodrigues-Birkett receives one fewer discouragement

Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett moves from 8-6-1 to 8-5-2. She gains no additional encouragements, but receives one fewer discouragement and one more “no opinion” vote. Under our combinatorial indicator, the share of possible distributions without P5 discouragements rises from 4.20% to 8.39%, a meaningful increase that nevertheless shows how precarious her position remains.

The improvement is therefore more limited than it might first appear: she is still one vote short of the nine-vote threshold and four behind Grynspan. Rodrigues-Birkett does, however, have room to improve her tally without reversing a discouragement, since she has two “no opinion” votes. Yet Rodrigues-Birkett also received two discouragements from permanent members in the sixth poll.

With Grynspan continuing to extend her lead, remaining on eight encouragements is beginning to carry a political cost, as we noted in our analysis of the seventh straw poll.

Nusseibeh: no further movement after her entry

Lana Nusseibeh records exactly the same result as in her first appearance: seven encouragements, six discouragements, and two “no opinion” votes.

The arrival of this latecomer was one of the major developments in the seventh straw poll. Entering the race directly in fourth place by encouragement votes showed that a candidate nominated after six rounds could still attract considerable initial support.

Nothing has changed in the eighth poll. With seven encouragements, Nusseibeh needs two more to reach the nine-vote threshold, exactly the number of “no opinion” votes she currently has. She could therefore reach it without having to reverse any discouragements, at least arithmetically, although her political viability would still depend on the P5.

Our indicator places her at 4.20% of possible distributions without discouragements from permanent members.

Her strongest opportunity could arise if the leading candidates face vetoes. But even then, we cannot yet know whether she could emerge as a compromise candidate.

Sinirlioğlu: another late entrant

The eighth round brings in Feridun Hadi Sinirlioğlu, nominated by Türkiye on November 1. He receives three encouragements, eight discouragements, and four “no opinion” votes in his first poll.

Unlike Nusseibeh, who entered with seven encouragements, Sinirlioğlu starts much further from the nine votes required. His four “no opinion” votes suggest that some Council members have yet to settle on a position regarding his candidacy. It is worth remembering that he has not yet appeared at the question-and-answer session candidates are required to attend.

But even if all four of those votes became encouragements, he would reach seven and would still need other members to change their positions. His eight discouragements leave just 0.70% of possible distributions in which none would come from the P5.

For now, then, the significance of his entry lies less in his numerical result than in the fact that new candidates continue to join the race after eight rounds in which the leading contenders have yet to resolve the problem of opposition from permanent members.

The remaining candidates

Olara Otunnu remains on four encouragements but reduces his discouragements from eleven to nine, while his “no opinion” votes rise from zero to two. It is an improvement over the seventh poll, but one that makes little difference to his position.

María Fernanda Espinosa Garcés moves from 2-10-3 to 3-10-2. She gains an encouragement and has one fewer “no opinion” vote, but still receives ten discouragements, leaving her position largely unchanged from the previous round.

Ivonne A-Baki remains at 1-14-0, which means that at least four of her discouragements must have come from permanent members.

None of these three candidates is showing signs of moving toward a possible recommendation.

Is the race approaching a decision?

The eighth straw poll reinforces a trend we had already identified: support is concentrated at the top of the table, while several candidates remain well short of the nine-vote threshold. But that concentration is not increasing evenly across the leading candidates.

Among the seven candidates who took part in both rounds, the total number of encouragements rises only from 42 to 44. Those two additional votes go to Grynspan and Espinosa, while Grossi remains on nine, Rodrigues-Birkett on eight, and Nusseibeh on seven.

Grynspan is pulling further ahead of her main competitors, even as the overall distribution of support changes little. Her numerical lead is becoming more firmly established, but the undifferentiated ballots still force us to distinguish between what we actually know and what our model allows us to explore.

And gaining more encouragement votes is a very different matter from getting every permanent member to agree, at the very least, to abstain.

What is happening with the latecomers?

Sinirlioğlu's arrival confirms that the entry of new candidates was not an isolated development in the seventh poll. Nusseibeh and Sinirlioğlu entered the race in consecutive rounds, after the colored ballots had revealed potential vetoes against every candidate then in the field.

This sequence of late entries is consistent with the hypothesis we have been following since the fifth straw poll: when the race struggles to produce a candidate acceptable to the P5, other contenders may see an opportunity to enter.

Grynspan's growing lead, however, introduces another factor we need to consider. If her three current discouragements come from elected members, she could be much closer to a decision than the differentiated results in October had led us to expect. But if any of those discouragements still come from permanent members, the Council could find itself with a candidate enjoying a very large numerical majority who nevertheless cannot secure a recommendation in a formal vote. In that second scenario, there would still be incentives to seek alternatives.

The question that now seems decisive is more precise: do Grynspan's three remaining discouragements come from elected members, or does at least one permanent member still oppose her? The answer could determine the outcome of the entire process, or send us back to square one.