English Chess Forum

I wonder if anyone could be as kind as to post here the details of the ECF Council Voting Register.

I find it fascinating that the county of Warwickshire merits one vote and that a church hall in Golders Green merits 3!

I assume therefore that the votes are allocated on the basis of game fee? This suggests that one can purchase votes by running various tournaments : please correct me...

I spoke with a number of persons who are ECF delegates and asked them how they go about determining the views of those they represent at Council : these persons may carry a whole bunch of votes from disparate organisations.

Generally, I was told that they didn't seek opinion since there wasn't an AGM for that organisation between the council meeting agenda being published and the meeting itself. Also, their own opinion was normally adequate! I did suggest that they could canvas opinion at least from the committee of the organisation and that even three weeks might be adequate time to do this.

So, up and down the country how many persons are there mandated to represent an organisation but merely end up represent ing their own opinion or what they believe to be in the best interests of the organisations they allegedly represent?

I also enquired if the way that they would cast their votes would reflect the spread of opinion within the organisations they represented. It would appear that the lump of votes is a digital entity. i.e. 7-0 or 0-7 but not 3-4 or 5-2 etc.

Anyway, my research was confined to very few and maybe not representative (oh, the irony of it!) of this wonderful democracy we seem to have in Council.

Opinion and corrections to my lack of knowledge are most welcome!

John Upham wrote:I wonder if anyone could be as kind as to post here the details of the ECF Council Voting Register.
I assume therefore that the votes are allocated on the basis of game fee? This suggests that one can purchase votes by running various tournaments : please correct me...

This is correct - another good reason to get rid of the chess prevention tax!

John,

I reproduced Peter Sowray's account of this in a post on page 2 of the resignation rumours thread. I have never been a delegate to ECF council but I have participated many times in discussions of the council agenda in Southern Counties and Surrey meetings where there have been detailed discussions and (sometimes) delegates have been told how to vote. For example, who to vote for in the recently contested elections for board members was discussed by both organisations.

I do accept that this practice may not be universal. Although I have a (slight) personal preference for OMOV systems because of transparency, the delegate democracy system has some advantages (as well as disadvantages). For example, the delegates themselves (and the people attending meetings in the organisations they come from) do have reasonably detailed knowledge about the issues being decided. With a OMOV system just about all you can do is elect the board once a year and then all detailed policy discussions are up to them. For democracy to work people have a basic understanding of the issues involved when voting. If we consider the game fee versus universal membership scheme debate for example, there will be several hundred active players and organisers who understand what the issues are and can express their views via delegates to council. A OMOV board would have to decide the issue because most of the 13,000 or so electorate just wouldn't be interested - they are more interested in chess.

Mike.

If OMOV came in to force but the Juniors outnumber the adults how would the board allow the juniors to gain represention. This is a view point debate not a factual "this is how it should be" type debate. I am worried that with some many juniors on the verge of becoming ECF members it could tip the balance of democracy.

Charles

I belong to two organisations that use OMOV - both have a minimum voting age (16 springs to mind) to correspond with a lower membership fee

Mick

John Upham wrote:I wonder if anyone could be as kind as to post here the details of the ECF Council Voting Register.

I find it fascinating that the county of Warwickshire merits one vote and that a church hall in Golders Green merits 3!

I assume therefore that the votes are allocated on the basis of game fee? This suggests that one can purchase votes by running various tournaments : please correct me...

I spoke with a number of persons who are ECF delegates and asked them how they go about determining the views of those they represent at Council : these persons may carry a whole bunch of votes from disparate organisations.

Generally, I was told that they didn't seek opinion since there wasn't an AGM for that organisation between the council meeting agenda being published and the meeting itself. Also, their own opinion was normally adequate! I did suggest that they could canvas opinion at least from the committee of the organisation and that even three weeks might be adequate time to do this.

So, up and down the country how many persons are there mandated to represent an organisation but merely end up represent ing their own opinion or what they believe to be in the best interests of the organisations they allegedly represent?

I also enquired if the way that they would cast their votes would reflect the spread of opinion within the organisations they represented. It would appear that the lump of votes is a digital entity. i.e. 7-0 or 0-7 but not 3-4 or 5-2 etc.

Anyway, my research was confined to very few and maybe not representative (oh, the irony of it!) of this wonderful democracy we seem to have in Council.

Opinion and corrections to my lack of knowledge are most welcome!

Warwickshire merits just one vote as the chess in the county is played in independent leagues (Birmingham League, Coventry and District, Leamington League); the Birmingham being one of the largest contributors to the ECF. Voting at ECF Council is by show of hands. Some affiliates do not attend and can nominate proxies to hold their votes. So, for example, Martin Regan held the proxy vote for Cleveland CCA if we are to believe Mr Lazenby's contribution. A card vote/poll may be demanded when the voting power of each affiliate is worked out based on the number of standard game fee games submitted in multiples of 1,000 - so if you've submitted 5000 games you would receive 5 votes. Unless any of the affiliates have held mandating meetings for their delegates in the month prior to the meeting their votes are likely to reflect the opinions of the organisations when they were last canvassed.

Mick Norris wrote:Charles

I belong to two organisations that use OMOV - both have a minimum voting age (16 springs to mind) to correspond with a lower membership fee

Mick

I kinda thought that would be the responce but is there a way that juniors can have an Adult representation. I just think it may be an ideal as so many of them are going to pay membership that they have some with voting rights looking out for there interest too. I just don't know how?