Preferred option for electoral reform?

[Paolo Casaschi]

Leaving aside the legal issue that a member organisation is free to appoint anyone it wishes to be it's ECF delegate; why, if a league or county decides to democratically elect a person to be their rep, would it be of any interest to anyone outside that organisation? If an organisation doesn't like their rep also being someone else's rep or doesn't think he/she is doing a good job (perhaps through not consulting), can't they simply elect someone else.

You are right in principle. And you'd be completely right if the ECF would interact only with the leagues/counties/others and leave dealing with individuals to those leagues/counties/others. Instead, you first ask individuals for compulsory direct membership to the ECF, then you tell the same individuals that they should seek representation at the ECF through those organization and it's ultimately none of the ECF business how those organizations work and elect representatives and so on. Do you see the problem?

Again comparing with other countries, in Italy individuals are represented at the federation' election by their club president (or delegate). However, the federation imposes some basic rules on their clubs, including having annual elections for management roles and having some oversight powers on club activities. While they delegate dealing with individuals to clubs, they still make sure there is fair representation.

[Mick Norris]

The ECF Board have been instructed by the AGM to consider the issue of the voting balance between organisations and individuals. Given the existence of a Governance Committee, presumably that is invited or requested to do much of the research and leg work.

That motion specified a two year timescale, appropriate in my view for a highly complex subject. The Board may feel that it's a task for an ad hoc specialist group rather than for the Governance Committee, although I would anticipate some overlap in personnel.

Indeed. I'd like to see a group set up to investigate and I'd like it to produce a comprehensive briefing paper, with content which, roughly, might look like this:
- Background with a description of the current system (referencing the appropriate Articles of Association) and listing the reasons for change;
- Descriptions of representative democracy and direct democracy – what they are, the pros and cons of each, the circumstances in which each is commonly applied;
- Analysis of the voting systems employed by other organisations comparable to our own; and,
- Options for voting reform. How each would work and the pros and cons of each.

Do we know what steps the ECF are going to take to follow the instruction from the AGM?

All well and good discussing here, but would be better to see volunteers to actually help the process

[Angus French]

That motion specified a two year timescale, appropriate in my view for a highly complex subject. The Board may feel that it's a task for an ad hoc specialist group rather than for the Governance Committee, although I would anticipate some overlap in personnel.

Indeed. I'd like to see a group set up to investigate and I'd like it to produce a comprehensive briefing paper, with content which, roughly, might look like this:
- Background with a description of the current system (referencing the appropriate Articles of Association) and listing the reasons for change;
- Descriptions of representative democracy and direct democracy – what they are, the pros and cons of each, the circumstances in which each is commonly applied;
- Analysis of the voting systems employed by other organisations comparable to our own; and,
- Options for voting reform. How each would work and the pros and cons of each.

Do we know what steps the ECF are going to take to follow the instruction from the AGM?

All well and good discussing here, but would be better to see volunteers to actually help the process

Maybe something will come out of the Board strategy meeting which is being held tomorrow.

I think it'd be great if Mohammed Amin (the Manchester Chess Federation rep.) was involved as: a) it was he who suggest the extension in scope; and, b) I think he might be eminently qualified to assist. I don't, of course, know whether Mohammed has the time or would be willing to be involved.

[Mick Norris]

Maybe something will come out of the Board strategy meeting which is being held tomorrow.

I think it'd be great if Mohammed Amin (the Manchester Chess Federation rep.) was involved as: a) it was he who suggest the extension in scope; and, b) I think he might be eminently qualified to assist. I don't, of course, know whether Mohammed has the time or would be willing to be involved.

Amin struggles for time, as he is very busy, but it may be something he will give input to

[IM Jack Rudd]

I know quite a bit about electoral theory, and would be happy to give some input from that side of things.

[Paul McKeown]

Of course, none of this helps when no one credible is prepared to stand for important posts.

This has nothing to do with the electoral system or your previous question.

It is entirely salient to both this thread and the to the question of electoral system. You won't win a campaign for a wider electoral franchise, if people believe they won't have anyone worth voting for.

How would this be different than the current situation with members that do NOT have anyone to vote for (because they do not have a vote)?

It wouldn't. The question you have to persuade people of is, "So what?"

[Paolo Casaschi]

Of course, none of this helps when no one credible is prepared to stand for important posts.

This has nothing to do with the electoral system or your previous question.

It is entirely salient to both this thread and the to the question of electoral system. You won't win a campaign for a wider electoral franchise, if people believe they won't have anyone worth voting for.

How would this be different than the current situation with members that do NOT have anyone to vote for (because they do not have a vote)?

It wouldn't. The question you have to persuade people of is, "So what?"

Maybe. But you also have to persuade members every year that it's worth renewing the membership.

[Paul McKeown]

It wouldn't. The question you have to persuade people of is, "So what?"

Maybe. But you also have to persuade members every year that it's worth renewing the membership.

That's easy. If people want to play competitive chess, they need to be members. The benefits of voting to fill ECF offices are not so clear cut to most people.

Look, I'm playing Devil's Advocate, to some degree here, as I would probably favour OMOV. However, what is irritating me a little, here, is that those most violently in favour seem remarkably reticent at the moment to put forward compelling arguments.

[Paolo Casaschi]

Look, I'm playing Devil's Advocate, to some degree here, as I would probably favour OMOV. However, what is irritating me a little, here, is that those most violently in favour seem remarkably reticent at the moment to put forward compelling arguments.

You have to admit that you do not explain your assumptions either. For instance where do you get that in case of OMOV elections there would not be candidates for the board posts (and therefore people should/would not be interested in OMOV)?

[Paul McKeown]

Paolo, having a conversation with you is a bizarre affair, altogether. I have already provided an example, that of the recent Presidential election, in which "Neither of the above", had (s)he been nominated might well have won by a furlong.

[Paolo Casaschi]

Paolo, having a conversation with you is a bizarre affair, altogether. I have already provided an example, that of the recent Presidential election, in which "Neither of the above", had (s)he been nominated might well have won by a furlong.

I'm totally confused now. Are you then saying that the electoral system should not be changed to prevent something that actually could have happened with the CURRENT system?

[Paul McKeown]

Paolo, I assume you are deliberately trying to boil my piss, so you have now achieved the honour of becoming the first person ever on my foe's list. Thanks and good night.

[IM Jack Rudd]

"None of the above" was a candidate in the recent Presidential election, as it is for all elections to ECF posts. It didn't get many votes.

My own preference with these elections is one that is orthogonal to the current discussion - in that it can be combined with any of the options given above; it would be a switch from plurality to approval voting. That is to say, instead of "vote for one of these candidates, most votes in favour wins", it would be "vote for or against each of these candidates in turn, most votes in favour wins". (This could be combined with a rule that if no candidate gets more FOR than AGAINST votes, we have a "none of the above" victory.)

[David Shepherd]

I think a compelling argument is that as members we currently indirectly have votes via various bodies and organisations, but we have little idea how those votes were cast and no real say in how they are cast, and to be honest mostly not a huge amount of knowledge of who is voting on our behalf. As members it would be nice to feel that we had some meaningful say in the election process as we are the people paying the membership fees and playing the chess.

An online system with a password for each member should facilitate voting and allow the ECF to deliver additional content to members not related to voting.

[Paul McKeown]

@Jack

I would be in favour of approval voting, too. Perhaps via a single list for all candidates, posts to be divvied up later amongst approved candidates.