ECF Elections Sham?

[Paolo Casaschi]

no one is prepared to stick their necks out to explain why their preferred choice is best

Do you refer to the poll about electoral votes?
Then the answer is very easy: compared to the current voting method, both the option of "restricting voting rights to members using OMOV" and the option of "restricting voting rights to members but channeling those votes through ELECTED representatives" are better because they guarantee proper representation to the individual members that the ECF ultimately expects to fund the ECF activity. Of the two options better than the current one, pick the one you you think might be easier to implement.

[Paul McKeown]

Paolo,

Why don't you stick that post on the franchise thread? It's a start.

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

[Paolo Casaschi]

Why don't you stick that post on the franchise thread? It's a start.

I replied in the same place where you asked.

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.

[Andrew Zigmond]

I'm starting to feel that a lot of people (including myself) have played into the hands of the sham theorists by engaging in debate with them. We should have let them have their shrill little say; this poll shows how few people agree with them.

Paolo has a point when he talks about increasing the say individual members - who do indeed finance the ECF - have. However I think we all need to remember that the ECF is a) still emerging from a period of weakness and b) largely volunteer led. Things probably won't change if board members are directly elected, they may change if people start asking what they would like the ECF to do differently and engaging with and supporting the director or officer responsible.

[Paolo Casaschi]

Paolo has a point when he talks about increasing the say individual members - who do indeed finance the ECF - have. However I think we all need to remember that the ECF is a) still emerging from a period of weakness and b) largely volunteer led. Things probably won't change if board members are directly elected

That is fine. No issues with keeping the current electoral rules. But then the ECF should source their finances from the organizations represented in the council (that have a saying into the ECF management) instead of asking individual members.

[Paul McKeown]

Paolo - please put discussion regarding the electoral system in the thread concerned with the electoral system.
It helps keep things clear and the forum tidy, thanks!

[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.

[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)?

[JustinHorton]

No one was barred, no one was prevented from standing on a platform.

I wonder if this may miss the point?

(I mean as I said above, it's OK. If people want to say "nothing to see here", they can do so. Let's hope they're right.)

[Paul McKeown]

Justin, you imply that I miss "the point". Perhaps you might like to help me, by telling what the point is.

[Dragoljub Sudar]

The problem for the poll regarding changing the franchise is that no one is prepared to stick their necks out to explain why their preferred choice is best.

Not quite true Paul, I have. See page 2 of the other thread.

This election was not a sham and was perfectly legitimate under our current system, however the current system is wrong as it gives a large number of votes to people who don't represent anyone.

[Paul McKeown]

(I mean as I said above, it's OK. If people want to say "nothing to see here", they can do so. Let's hope they're right.)

This aside actually amuses me somewhat. It assumes that one can't hold the election to have been legitimate (i.e. not a sham), whilst, simultaneously, seeing the potential dangers of its outcome. A logical fallacy, thus. A similar fallacy is the argument that dissatisfaction with the structure of the ECF should lead one to conclude that its elections are fraudulent.