They might also ask those who play a lot of chess, even if not involved in organisation. I doubt they would pay much respect to the views of those who didn't play chess, were not involved in chess organisation or who weren't involved indirectly as parents.Andrew Zigmond wrote: If they suddenly received a vote the likelihood is they would ask around club and league colleagues (or congress friends) until they find somebody who has an opinion; most likely somebody involved in chess organisation.
In my mind there are two types of OMOV. There's the type where the ECF retains a Council voting structure but a significant amount of voting power is up for grabs by individuals directly elected or nominated by individual players. There's also the type where every "Member" has a vote. That's vulnerable to proxy harvesting and remains muddy whether it's even legal, short of expecting every new player to download, sign and post a form back to the ECF.
I'm not sure whether there's a looming confrontation with the SRA, whose codes were signed up to by the outgoing CEO. ECF voters have shown themselves hostile to the notion of a top down organisation where the local exists only with the sufferance of the national. The problem is that many sports organisations are organised that way.
There was a previous CEO who thought the solution to ECF problems was that every one should pay the ECF between £ 20 and £ 30 a year as a condition of playing organised and graded chess. When it was suggested that it wasn't a terribly good idea, he walked out, although his successors have managed to drag the ECF some way along that path.