Voting Systems

[Roger de Coverly]

Do people on this board really want to go back to the 19th century when sports were governed by men who were British, aristocratic and amateur?

I think we'd like to go back to 1982, when the President of FIDE did not act as a comforter of dictators and wasn't maintained in power by a treasure chest. If it's not too much to ask, could we have a FIDE President without ambitions to destroy chess competitions as we know them?

[Andrew Bak]

Does Roger believe that Russia, China and India should outvote the rest of the world?

We have a world of nation states. The voter in a small African state cannot change the laws in Russia, China and India.

On the other hand, the FIDE delegates of small states can vote to change the playing conditions of players in Russia, China and India. If you want an example, look at the practice in tournaments run by or for FIDE of defaulting players who are as much as ten seconds late. The General Assembly was only prevented from voting that in, for all games everywhere, by a clever political manoeuvre.

You could turn this argument on it's head - if Russia, China and India had many more votes than (say) all of Southern Africa combined, then FIDE delegates of a few number of large states could change the playing conditions of an entire geographical area, even an entire continent.

Far be it for me to make accusations of corruption, but wasn't there a scandal in FIFA a while ago. Something about delegates being given suitcases of money?

Of course this is a potential problem with "one state one vote". However this isn't the fault of the voting system, this is the fault of people who are willing act corruptly in order to suit their own personal needs.

PS - I'm not saying RdC is accusing anyone of corruption nor am I accusing anyone of corruption.

[Roger de Coverly]

You could turn this argument on it's head - if Russia, China and India had many more votes than (say) all of Southern Africa combined, then FIDE delegates of a few number of large states could change the playing conditions of an entire geographical area, even an entire continent.

Of course you could. It's saying that conditions of play and ethical standards accepted and expected by 90% of the world's players should be applied to the remaining 10%. If you have international chess, you need a core set of rules and Laws of Chess followed by everyone. The question is who should set these rules. I'm suggesting the apparently controversial idea that chess federations where the most chess is played have a bigger say than those where little chess is played.

[Gerard Killoran]

Do people on this board really want to go back to the 19th century when sports were governed by men who were British, aristocratic and amateur?

I think we'd like to go back to 1982, when the President of FIDE did not act as a comforter of dictators and wasn't maintained in power by a treasure chest. If it's not too much to ask, could we have a FIDE President without ambitions to destroy chess competitions as we know them?

The voting system was the same before 1982. As for comforters of dictators, check out Kasparov's cosy relationship with Gaidar Alijev. Perhaps you could consider there are reasons other than bribery for not voting for Kasparov.

[Warren Kingston]

I was thinking more of a National body which the grassroot members vote for positions on the board.

[Roger de Coverly]

The voting system was the same before 1982. .

In 1982, there were not nearly as many Federations as there are today. It was Campomanes who noticed the electoral advantages of "assisting" new federations to become FIDE members.

Quoting the original article

In the old days it was known as Cacdec and seemed to be run as a private commission of then President Florencio Campomanes.

Sadly the perception of new Federations is not always positive and in the past there was some justification. I was always annoyed by countries that seem to only exist in election years when a delegate would turn up without a team maybe at someone else’s expense and then cast a vote and you would not hear from them again

One quite obvious reform would be to offer new Federations non voting membership until they were established with a reasonable number of players.

Perhaps you could consider there are reasons other than bribery for not voting for Kasparov.

Who said anything about Kasparov? It's basically a "none of the above" attitude towards Kirsan and the voting system that keeps him power regardless of the challenger.

[Roger de Coverly]

I was thinking more of a National body which the grassroot members vote for positions on the board.

The National Trust for example
http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/about-us/agm/

The governance looks complex and convoluted, but it doesn't appear to give more weight to the views of one set of individuals by virtue of geography and demographics.

If I got the overview right, it looks as if individuals elect Council members who then elect/appoint a Board. Individuals seem to have limited powers to put up resolutions for discussion at the AGM.

In the financial sphere, the Nationwide Building Society
http://www.nationwide.co.uk/about_natio ... voting.htm

Mutual financial organisations aren't the best of practical examples of individual participation, because the disparity of expertise and information between members and the Board allows the Board to do whatever it wants.

[IanDavis]

There are cases to be made for both sides. It seems obvious that neither system will remove corruption.
One question that has to be asked is, how would you plan to convince FIDE members to vote to reduce their voting rights? Would there be a financial incentive?

[Roger de Coverly]

One question that has to be asked is, how would you plan to convince FIDE members to vote to reduce their voting rights? Would there be a financial incentive?

Smaller Federations complain quite legitimately that FIDE membership costs can make up a disproportionate part of their budget. Not that it will happen, but offer non-voting membership at a lower price. An equivalent idea was suggested for the ECF, namely to offer individual voting rights at a higher membership cost than non voting.

Waiving by FIDE incumbemts, or a third party paying FIDE membership costs is alleged to be a method whereby voting can be influenced.

[Gerard Killoran]

It was Campomanes who noticed the electoral advantages of "assisting" new federations to become FIDE members.

If you think that FIDE acquiring new members is different from any other international sports body then you are much mistaken. The dissolutions of the USSR and Yugoslavia alone gave us all quite a few more countries.

Why not have a moan about voting patterns at the Eurovision Song Contest while you're at it?

The solution to the problems of democracy is more democracy - not less.

[Roger de Coverly]

The solution to the problems of democracy is more democracy - not less.

The solution to the problem in 1830s Britain of Old Sarum having 2 MPs with one or two voters and Manchester having none, was to remove the votes of Old Sarum so as to redistribute voting power to be that bit more representative of the population as a whole.

On balance the Great Reform Act is regarded as increasing democracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1832
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Sarum_ ... ituency%29

[IanDavis]

One other reform might be to remove membership for those who were not sovereign states.

[Roger de Coverly]

One other reform might be to remove membership for those who were not sovereign states.

That's already happened. Gibraltar, Isle of Man and the Ulster Chess Union have already been rejected. FIDE's current position is that existing members are allowed to continue their membership, so Hong Kong and Bermuda have continued membership.

[IanDavis]

It could be more fully, and more justly implemented.

[Sean Hewitt]

That's already happened. Gibraltar, Isle of Man and the Ulster Chess Union have already been rejected. FIDE's current position is that existing members are allowed to continue their membership, so Hong Kong and Bermuda have continued membership.

As do England, Scotland and Wales - none of which would be admitted if they applied today.