Should the FIDE voting system be reformed and if so how?

[Brian Towers]

Ooh! I fee a Soheil question coming on:

What is the difference between 'association' and 'federation' in "happy to remain an association and not become a federation"

That's a tricky one. I would suggest that the difference lies in some form of statutory control.

FIDE defines the laws of chess and chess competitions which happen under its domain.
The ECF accepts these and can add its own strictures. For instance, the default time I believe doesn't have a default in FIDE but the ECF has said that for events held under its domain if no default time is specified then a default default time of 30 minutes for standard and 10 minutes for rapid applies. Similarly for events for players under the age of 11 the illegal move rules can be waived or modified (obviously only if the event is not FIDE rated).

Does the MCF define how chess should be played in its jurisdiction? Or is it entertaining ideas above its station?

Yorkshire has its own grading system which already puts it one large step closer to federation status.

[Julie Denning]

Interesting Brian, the MCF is a federation, I hadn't thought Manchester could apply to be a member of FIDE

They can't! Quoting FIDE Regulations: "For new members, the country of the federation (with the same boundaries) must be a country or territory that is a member of the International Olympic Committee."

As has been observed before, the likes of Guernsey and Jersey would not be permitted separate membership under the latest regulations, but retain their membership under grandfather rights from earlier regulations.

[Roger de Coverly]

FIDE is an international federation whose members are themselves federations, a formulation which avoids a lot of problems.

FIDE introduced a rule some while back that it was necessary for a territory to be eligible to compete in Olympics under its own name for its Federation to become a FIDE member. Had these rules been in place in the past, they would have excluded Scotland, Wales, Jersey, Guernsey, Bermuda, Hong Kong and no doubt some others. Existing membership continues. As it is, the rule excludes Northern Ireland, Isle of Man and Gibraltar who might be interested if allowed.

The exact domestic constitutional status of FIDE members, whether "Federations", "Associations" or other legal structures is not relevant.

[Mick Norris]

Interesting Brian, the MCF is a federation, I hadn't thought Manchester could apply to be a member of FIDE

They can't! Quoting FIDE Regulations: "For new members, the country of the federation (with the same boundaries) must be a country or territory that is a member of the International Olympic Committee."

As has been observed before, the likes of Guernsey and Jersey would not be permitted separate membership under the latest regulations, but retain their membership under grandfather rights from earlier regulations.

Thanks Julie, I'll speak to Andy Burnham to see if he can get us in the IOC though to be fair he's quite busy with the moors here being on fire and the train service being truly awful (neither of which the Uk Government seems to care about, so maybe we should go for separate territory status and stay in the EU while we are at it )

[NickFaulks]

FIDE introduced a rule some while back that it was necessary for a territory to be eligible to compete in Olympics under its own name for its Federation to become a FIDE member. Had these rules been in place in the past, they would have excluded Scotland, Wales, Jersey, Guernsey, Bermuda, Hong Kong and no doubt some others.

Bermuda competes in the Olympics, though I fear we might be on Short's list for the chop anyway.

[Roger de Coverly]

Bermuda competes in the Olympics

https://www.olympic.org/bermuda

Founded in 1935 in order to compete in 1936!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bermuda_at_the_Olympics

[Matt Mackenzie]

FIDE is an international federation whose members are themselves federations, a formulation which avoids a lot of problems.

FIDE introduced a rule some while back that it was necessary for a territory to be eligible to compete in Olympics under its own name for its Federation to become a FIDE member. Had these rules been in place in the past, they would have excluded Scotland, Wales, Jersey, Guernsey, Bermuda, Hong Kong and no doubt some others. Existing membership continues. As it is, the rule excludes Northern Ireland, Isle of Man and Gibraltar who might be interested if allowed.

As might Greenland and a few other territories outside the UK.

[JustinHorton]

Currently, both Gibraltar and the Isle of Man, with their opaque financial arrangements, are shunned by that part of the chess world interested in financial probity and transparency.

[Alex Holowczak]

What about 1 vote per 1000 (standard) rated players, or part thereof?

[Ian Thompson]

What about 1 vote per 1000 (standard) rated players, or part thereof?

Any voting entitlement scheme based on numbers of players, or player activity, would have to consider what might happen in the future with nations with very large populations.

For example, if China had the same proportion of competitive chess players in its population as England does, they could have about 400,000 FIDE rated players, with plenty of scope to make that number even larger.

[NickFaulks]

What about 1 vote per 1000 (standard) rated players, or part thereof?

I think the point is not the detail, but whether giving most of the votes to the big federations is a good idea in the first place.

[Roger de Coverly]

I think the point is not the detail, but whether giving most of the votes to the big federations is a good idea in the first place.

It's a proxy for OMOV, provided that big federations poll their membership and split their vote if opinions as to who to support are divided. Even a system that awards 1 vote by Federation plus additional votes conditional on headcount, games rated or other measures would give weighing to smaller Federations.

Another weighting could be prize money paid. The ECF would have influence there, not because of its own efforts, but by virtue of being the host Federation for Isle of Man, Gibraltar and London Chess Classic.

[shaunpress]

Coming from a Federation (PNG) that can be considered a 'rotten borough', reforming the voting system has always been a topic of interest for me. But before I make some suggestions it is not clear exactly what problem is being fixed. Is it simply the 'wrong' side winning elections? or is it regular chess players being denied a voice? or does it result in an inflexible management structure for FIDE? (All observations I have either heard or made myself). If it is all of these, plus others, which problems need fixing the most.

Each of the proposed solutions I have seen so far might address one issue but not all of them. Just to pick one out of the hat, Votes based on number of GM's would almost certainly result in a GM focused FIDE (and even national associations), as they could legitimately claim to 'own' the votes being cast by their Federations. And while this may not be a bad thing for those at the top, it still excludes the rest of the playing community from having a say.

My suggestion is to actually leave the voting system the way it is (One Federation, one vote), but to change what is actually being voted for. As most (all) of the power in FIDE resides with the Presidential Board I would propose changing that body. Apart from the elected ticket, I would abolish appointed VP's, and have the GA elect the remaining members on a proportional basis. The current PB has 22 voting members (including Continental Presidents and World Champions). If instead this was changed to 6 executive members, 2 world champions and 14 elected positions, there might be more robust debate concerning how world chess is to be managed. (or it just turns into a factional fight at every meeting!)
The 14 positions would be voted on every 4 years in such a way that one side or other could not claim all the seats (The Australian Senate voting system is one example of how this could be done).

As an aside, I also think the FIDE Membership rules should be changed to allow non-voting associate members who have the right to participate in FIDE events under their own flag (Gibraltar and New Caledonia are two places that spring to mind). I have suggested this to a few people in FIDE but it hasn't gained traction as yet.

[Nick Grey]

FIDE Keep OFOV but every 4 years change. Also half of the voting members must be women and the other half men. The top half of the organisations in terms of highest player on FIDE lists for year zero have to be a female member.

[Mike Gunn]

How about one member, one vote? (A member would be someone with an active FIDE rating.)