ECF voting arrangements

[Mark Howitt]

Personally I think the time and effort factor is a bigger reason for giving up chess, but the cost is an added barrier and may well be the most important factor for some people.

[MartinCarpenter]

Well pedantically you'd want rather more data to say anything too definite about those stats - the year on year changes really aren't large and even the whole seven year difference is hardly enormous.

It could plausibly be random fluctuations or some random environmental factor like the recent massive recession rather than anything 'real'.

[Greg Breed]

Personally I think the time and effort factor is a bigger reason for giving up chess

Agreed.

...but the cost is an added barrier and may well be the most important factor for some people.

I would have thought Chess one of the cheapest nationally available and run, competitive activities to do.

[Roger de Coverly]

Well pedantically you'd want rather more data to say anything too definite about those stats - the year on year changes really aren't large and even the whole seven year difference is hardly enormous.

The context was that I said that Congresses were competing in a static market, which is quite obviously true as far as headcount is concerned. So if one Congress expands, others or alternative weekend play contracts as a consequence unless you can get the existing people to spend more time playing chess. It seemed to always be Sean's contention that adding £ 2.50 to £ 4.00 to a Congress entry fee to help finance the ECF was enough to discourage entries in a way that being required to join the ECF at a cost of up to £ 28 was not.

[John Swain]

It's perhaps worth reminding ourselves of what the ECF AGM agreed on 12 October. What follows is taken from Richard Haddrell's summary on the SCCU website:

OMOV. We apologise for that heading, but we couldn't think of a better one. This was also from Sean Hewitt. His proposal was "that the board investigate the viability with a view to bringing proposals before Council in April 2014 to allow Directors to be elected directly by individual members of the Federation". People disliked this, not so much for its tortured English as for its restricted nature. An amendment was accepted to the effect that the Board would investigate the appropriate balance of voting powers and authority between Direct Members and affiliated organisations. No one objected to this, so motion carried.

As I recollect, much of the OMOV discussion pre-AGM on the Forum was restricted to the issue of Director elections, but Council on 12 October obviously had a wider agenda and I sympathise with their view. Simply electing Directors by OMOV could turn into a popularity contest where the issues are of less relevance than the profile of the candidate.

[Roger de Coverly]

Simply electing Directors by OMOV could turn into a popularity contest where the issues are of less relevance than the profile of the candidate.

That's very likely of course. The nice thing about electing directors by OMOV is that it means for one month of the year, they cannot treat potential voters with the disdain usually shown to players and local organisers.

[Mark Howitt]

Yep I would certainly describe that as tortured English!

[Mark Howitt]

It's cheap to do- but anyone with the intelligence to be a good chess player can make much more money, and probably get more 'social status', using that intelligence to do many other things.

[LawrenceCooper]

The nice thing about electing directors by OMOV is that it means for one month of the year, they cannot treat potential voters with the disdain usually shown to players and local organisers.

Presumably a dig at someone but no idea who

[Andrew Zigmond]

Simply electing Directors by OMOV could turn into a popularity contest where the issues are of less relevance than the profile of the candidate.

That's very likely of course. The nice thing about electing directors by OMOV is that it means for one month of the year, they cannot treat potential voters with the disdain usually shown to players and local organisers.

This assumes that chess players have short memories. The number of historic disputes that get raised on here suggests otherwise.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Actually, it clashes with Guernsey, rather than being sandwiched between Guernsey and Exmouth. Whilst you seem to see the level of entry as a problem, I see it as having given 4 people the opportunity to play 5 games of chess who otherwise wouldn't have done so. Additionally, it contributed four additional entry fees towards the overall running cost of the event. What you see as a negative, I see as a positive."

Unless I've miscounted, Guernsey got 63 Seniors, some of whom stated they wanted to play both events, so that was unfortunate. (I'm not suggesting the clash was deliberate of course!)

On the actual topic, my union deals with elections by sending a little booklet out with profiles and waffle from all the people standing, then you vote for up to 24 of them (which normally means you vote against about 8 - the most narrow-minded pursuers of their own causes). It is different in that you can vote for 24 individuals and then I think they sort out who does which jobs. You could vote in deadly rivals who couldn't stand each other of course, but that happens in the ECF elections.

[David Pardoe]

Simply electing Directors by OMOV could turn into a popularity contest where the issues are of less relevance than the profile of the candidate.

That's very likely of course. The nice thing about electing directors by OMOV is that it means for one month of the year, they cannot treat potential voters with the disdain usually shown to players and local organisers.

This assumes that chess players have short memories. The number of historic disputes that get raised on here suggests otherwise.

And there are those out there who do not want questions asked about past events, even those events that happened only two weeks ago, when that bogus election was high jacked by the angels of death.
People should be free to ask there questions and raise concerns, and express there views...without the thuggish element firing off abuse in a vein attempt to cover there perceived villainy.
It comes to something when those with large block votes try to hide the voting that they cast for the NED elections..refusing to say how many votes were allocated to each candidate? We`re not even asking who specifically voted for each particular candidates.
Godd knows what these jokers were up to for the main election...??

And what has this delivered... fools gold, Frankenstein, and Ehr.....many might wonder??

You will have noticed how the control freaks immediately fly into a rage, and hurl torrents of foul mouthed abuse the minute any probing questions are asked. These jokers think they are above question...and accountable to no-one...the tin godd state. They don't seem to realise that this forum is an `open` discussion platform, where people can freely express there views, and ask there questions for the benefit of our chess community. And people wonder why we have become a third world banana republic on the chess circuit.
They sneer at county chess because it isn't played in first class hotel locations. ? The reason for this is cost..pure and simple. If they booked a good hotel, they simply wouldn't get players to cough up. Or would they?
Bigger county matches, with broader grade bands might enable this, with 20 - 30 board matches perhaps.
Same goes for club chess...played mainly in local pubs and clubs, at dirt cheap rates. That's what people are prepared to pay...and there's no free lunches (that I know of..). and that's why many clubs and leagues scrape along from year to year...they are non profit making bodies, engaged in a transitional British pastime/hobby/sport.

So, yes, OMOV has been proved to work very effectively when this forum chose Roger Edwards as its preferred President.
They were clearly not convinced by Mr Paulsons soundbyte campaign on here, that left Mr Paulson running for cover under a barrage of questioning...only to re-emerge at high noon, the day before the election, to fire off another of his FIDE propaganda salvos.
Yes, this forum was not fooled by all this bluff and bluster.
So, a OMOV model similar to Sean's Poll experiment, could work fine, if scaled up and conducted independently..

Polls could open on the Wednesday before the elections, closing at 2.30pm on the Saturday. People could refer to the various sources of discussion and post there votes. No block votes, no control freaks, and no secrecy..
It needs to be simple and inexpensive...
The weightings of the vote could be scaled according to the turnout.
Lets say that up to 500 voters would give a 25% share of the voting..with delegates allocated 75%.
Then, say upto 1000 votes would give 50% allocation.
Over 1000 votes would accord say 60%..and over 2500 votes on the online vote would give a 90 % weighting to the online vote.
The results of the online vote would be declared at 6pm on the Saturday, after the delegate vote had taken place.

Clear, simple, and transparent.
Yes, we really need to rid ourselves of the current system, which is clearly wide open to abuse, and where the ordinary chess players have little or no say...but are expected to cough up there good money.
Neil says NO to OMOV..claiming voter apathy? Empower the voters, and lets see what happens. Dont forget, even the major bodies have very low levels of real support on these matters, with typically only a handfull of people consulted/responding. What does Neil/others think should be done?

[Brian Valentine]

I'm not sure if I qualify as an angel of death, a joker or both, but I do think David is on form this morning.

[Neil Graham]

So, yes, OMOV has been proved to work very effectively when this forum chose Roger Edwards as its preferred President.
They were clearly not convinced by Mr Paulsons soundbyte campaign on here, that left Mr Paulson running for cover under a barrage of questioning...only to re-emerge at high noon, the day before the election, to fire off another of his FIDE propaganda salvos.
Yes, this forum was not fooled by all this bluff and bluster.


What does Neil/others think should be done?

"

On the actual topic, my union deals with elections by sending a little booklet out with profiles and waffle from all the people standing, then you vote for up to 24 of them (which normally means you vote against about 8 - the most narrow-minded pursuers of their own causes). It is different in that you can vote for 24 individuals and then I think they sort out who does which jobs. You could vote in deadly rivals who couldn't stand each other of course, but that happens in the ECF elections.

This forum has a membership of 992 of whom 85 actually voted in the poll for President; a turnout of 8.5% - this shows not that OMOV worked effectively but that 91.5% of the membership couldn't care less about who became President of the ECF. I was, I believe, a member of the same Union as Kevin. My recollection is that the election manifesto booklets were certainly rather larger than a small booklet - the result though was exactly the same, although every Union member is sent all the details - with a total membership of 246,264 in the April 2013 elections, some 23,204 voting slips were returned making the turnout 9.5%. If every member of the ECF was franchised I confidently expect that the actual people who voted would be no more than 10%.

[Roger de Coverly]

but that 91.5% of the membership couldn't care less about who became President of the ECF.

It doesn't show that, rather that 91.5% didn't want to be included in an unofficial straw poll. I didn't bother myself. If it was to be used as a justification as to why individuals shouldn't be allowed to query the decisions of ECF Directors and influence the choice thereof, perhaps I should have.

If you want a manageable AGM, about forty people would be the maximum attendees. Kevin's suggestion is that you attempt to find in excess of that as volunteers and then have an election to cut them down to the required headcount. If you elected them for four years, you have to find ten a year, although once elected they could become unaccountable in practice.

It's a possible method for the election of the existing Direct member reps. Find at least enough people willing to stand for all the vacant positions and share out the nominal areas of responsibility after the elections. But with only one vote each, each only has as much voting power as a small rapid-play, other than the option rarely exercised, to put motions on the AGM or Finance Agenda without having to do much canvassing for external support.