ECF Elections 2015

[J T Melsom]

Julie Denning would be an excellent choice although when she was metaphorically banging my head against a wall for disclosing the fact that John Foley had canvassed SCCU support, she didn't disclose her own plans. I guess the 'anyone but Chris Fegan' campaign has swelled the ranks of the nominations.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Ah! I've been waiting for this opportunity to say this to you for about a year now. Paedophile!!

Not nearly enough Fs at this level. I think you might have to up your SwearyMary game if you want the job.

[Carl Hibbard]

There does seem a lot of Chris "it was never me" Fegan comments over there?

[Michael Farthing]

Ah! I've been waiting for this opportunity to say this to you for about a year now. Paedophile!!

Not nearly enough Fs at this level. I think you might have to up your SwearyMary game if you want the job.

Would you be able to provide coaching? For a suitable fee, of course. But you must be ECF approved and CRB (or whatever the new initials are) checked.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Ah! I've been waiting for this opportunity to say this to you for about a year now. Paedophile!!

Not nearly enough Fs at this level. I think you might have to up your SwearyMary game if you want the job.

Would you be able to provide coaching?.

No but I know a man who can.

Warning: LINK to Extremely Course Fecker

https://youtu.be/DaMb-5w-V0Y

[Michael Farthing]

O.K Jonathan. I've decided not to stand!

[Mike Truran]

Well, at the current rate of progress it looks like John F and Chris F are dead men walking. On the other hand, Mr None Of The Above against a couple of the other candidates could well be the coming man. I did ask John P if he could be nominated as a candidate (so long as his membership fee was paid), but for some reason I have yet to fathom he didn't seem to completely buy into the idea.

[Paul McKeown]

NEDs - Julian, Julie Denning (who I expect would be good), Jack (nice to see him in the race) & Chris Fegan - so we have interesting tactical voting choices again for those in favour of 1 candidate, or those wanting to stop Mr Fegan getting elected

I know reform is as unlikely as to the national Parliament, and the institutions are equally unfit for purpose, but really if there is one post and multiple candidates, the election would be better held under Alternative Vote.

There are two NED posts available, so four candidates for two posts. I think there was a similar situation last time round, and the election was just those two candidates with the most votes. Maybe someone could confirm that?

Paul

Precisely, as Jack mentioned last time there were 4 candidates, when I explained the MCF were casting only a vote for Julian as we wanted him elected

In that case, where there are two identical posts and multiple candidates to fill those posts, the rational system, avoiding idiotic tactical voting problems and other irrational outcomes, is AV's big brother, STV, Single Transferable Vote.

[Michael Flatt]

There are two posts so the fairest way might be to hold two separate votes:
1. The winner of the first vote takes the 1st NED vacancy
2. The winner of the second round (between those that lost out in the first vote) then takes the second NED post.

[Paul McKeown]

That still leaves you with tactical voting, split votes amongst similar candidates and all the other familiar problems.

[Roger de Coverly]

There are two posts so the fairest way might be to hold two separate votes:

With the increasing frequency of elections for the NED positions, that's a reform which really ought to be considered. Other voting systems would be possible. It makes "none of the above" a candidate as well.

[Michael Flatt]

That still leaves you with tactical voting, split votes amongst similar candidates and all the other familiar problems.

I don't understand that.
All eligible candidates stand and Council can select the most popular candidate from each list.
So, having elected the first candidate he becomes ineligible for the second vote.

The process is totally transparent in that the first past the post is the winner in each of the votes. What are the "tactics" you allude to?

[Roger de Coverly]

Julie Denning would be an excellent choice although when she was metaphorically banging my head against a wall for disclosing the fact that John Foley had canvassed SCCU support,

I'd be rather inclined to say "tough". If you canvass votes among county associations, they will have some regard to consult or consider their local electorate, therefore secrecy cannot be assumed.

[Paul McKeown]

@Michael - I don't want to derail this discussion, but I will leave it by saying that because your suggestion is two consecutive first past the post elections, it has all the defects of first past the post with more than two candidates for any given elected position, too, including split votes allowing an unpopular candidate through the middle, tactical voting and the all the other well understood problems. That's the point. You might care to do your own research, that would be my advice, not wishing to take the thread any further off topic. P.S. Jack R., might well suggest Approval Voting, and he might not be wrong in doing so.

[Michael Flatt]

Julie Denning would be an excellent choice although when she was metaphorically banging my head against a wall for disclosing the fact that John Foley had canvassed SCCU support,

I'd be rather inclined to say "tough". If you canvass votes among county associations, they will have some regard to consult or consider their local electorate, therefore secrecy cannot be assumed.

In normal circumstances Julie would be right, but here the late switch of a NED from standing for re-election in his own post to challenge an incumbent in another post seems against the norms of respectable behaviour and might even be described as underhand.

The incumbent should expect to be able to stand for reelection unopposed by another Board member. If the Board wish to remove a member there is a proper process that it can follow. A contributing factor noted by others, as well as myself, is the frequency of elections (i.e. electing all posts each year.)