+- Forums (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Members Only (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-16.html)
+--- Forum: General Chess Chat (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: AGM Candidates (/thread-661.html)
Re: AGM Candidates - robin moore - 08-08-2013
Phil,
Do you agree in principle with there being a limit imposed on the number of proxy votes an individual member can cast?
If so, given the figures you have quoted from last year's AGM, does a limit of 25 proxy votes per person seem a reasonable figure for 2014 onwards?
Re: AGM Candidates - robin moore - 08-08-2013
Please move this post to a seperate thread if it is sidetracking or going off topic as it is not my intention.
I was wondering if we could give strong consideration next year for the AGM venue to be moved to somewhere like Stirling in order to see if it would possibly increase the number of members attending.
Re: AGM Candidates - George Murphy - 08-08-2013
Walter,
As I’m sure you are already aware, in Britain we are governed by an elective dictatorship. But, that’s at a national level. On this forum we are addressing how to administer a relatively small society in the best interests of all members. Of course, ‘best’ is subjective. But, our officebearer elections are conducted on an annual basis, affording the opportunity for a more frequent turnover of elected officials, if members so decide. Electioneering and bloc voting are quite distinct: one is to be applauded, the other disavowed.
You are wrong to think I intend disrespect to anyone. I assume you did not attend the AGM to which Andy Muir referred. The gentleman he named was voted in by popular acclaim (show of hands) and only then did he put his hand in his pocket and say, ‘Good, because I have X number of (proxy) votes in my pocket if needed.’ (Not an exact quote, I’m sure, given the deteriorating state of my memory.) So, when I referred to a Mr X in that context I was referring to a putative model - not a real person. Far from intending disrespect, I was distancing myself from ad hominem dispute/argument.
I don’t think Andy was being serious when he suggested a limit of three proxy votes per person. I think it was just banter based on my allusion to ‘Harry, Dick and Tom’, which of course was intended to personify ‘the lobbyist’.
Phil,
Thank you for your support. I’m not a psephologist, but I’m sure your analysis is spot on. I agree that it is voter apathy - a perfectly natural reaction - that affords the opportunity for bloc voting to exercise disproportionate effect.
George
Re: AGM Candidates - Andy Howie - 08-08-2013
robin moore Wrote:Please move this post to a seperate thread if it is sidetracking or going off topic as it is not my intention.
I was wondering if we could give strong consideration next year for the AGM venue to be moved to somewhere like Stirling in order to see if it would possibly increase the number of members attending.
Interestingly I floated the idea of moving council and AGM to other places at the recent council meeting. Overwhelming opinion was no they wanted it held centrally in Glasgow. I should add it was not the Glasgow Dwellers that were the vocal ones about it!
Re: AGM Candidates - David G Congalton - 08-08-2013
Quote:In Vietnam, proxy voting was used to increase turnout. Presently, proxy voting is illegal, but it has nonetheless been occurring since before 1989. It is estimated to contribute about 20% to voter turnout, and has been described as "a convenient way to fulfill one's duty, avoid possible risks, and avoid having to participate directly in the act of voting". It is essentially a compromise between the party-state, which wants to have high turnouts as proof of public support, and voters who do not want to go to the polling stations.
In the Soviet Union, proxy voting was also illegal but done in order to increase turnout figures.
Wards of Hanoi - Google Books. Books.google.com. 2006. ISBN 978-981-230-341-7. Retrieved 2010-03-18.
There are many possible reasons for a turnout of 26 from a membership of 572. Although this was an improvement on the 14 who attended in 2010, which was oddly a year after 40 people attended. It would be interesting to understand why the 2009 number failed to be built upon and indeed dropped off so dramatically. Apathy, political or other has been mentioned, as have things that had gone on in the past and are going on in the present. There may also be those who feel it makes no difference whether they attend or not because the big hitters with the proxy votes will dictate what happens.
I should say that I have been to the last two AGM’s and some council meetings in between and while the proxy sword has been brandished by those armed with it, I have yet to see proxy votes used for more than sabre rattling purposes. However, is it right to have no limit to the number of proxy votes one person can wield?
With around 287 proxy votes in my back pocket I can save everyone a Saturday and just let you all know what will be happening in the next year. I expect there will be some constitutional changes to allow me to retain power indefinitely.
Re: AGM Candidates - robin moore - 08-08-2013
Andy,
Fair enough. The basic reasoning behind my thoughts was to hopefully increase numbers attending and from a wider geographical spread of the country. Stirling, as an example, would be within reasonable travelling distance for a large majority of members, in the hope that we could increase the overall attendance to around the 60 mark (admittedly very optimistic) and consequently possibly consider limiting proxy votes to 10 per member which would be my own preference. I would be really keen to explore any other voting options..postal/email etc if members had ample opportunity in advance to consider candidates priorities/vision for the year ahead.
A skype or similar live link is an exciting option also but have no idea of the costs/technical issues this may entail.
At the end of the day I would like (as I am sure we all do) all members to be able to cast their vote in the assurance that it will matter.
Re: AGM Candidates - Andrew McHarg - 08-08-2013
Andy Howie Wrote:robin moore Wrote:Please move this post to a seperate thread if it is sidetracking or going off topic as it is not my intention.
I was wondering if we could give strong consideration next year for the AGM venue to be moved to somewhere like Stirling in order to see if it would possibly increase the number of members attending.
Interestingly I floated the idea of moving council and AGM to other places at the recent council meeting. Overwhelming opinion was no they wanted it held centrally in Glasgow. I should add it was not the Glasgow Dwellers that were the vocal ones about it!
It's still a biased sample though, as the people who were in attendance presumably didn't have a problem getting there...
But I think this raises the question of why people aren't attending. I'd be surprised if for most members it was a location issue. If that was the case then the Glasgow Congress wouldn't get the numbers it does. So getting to Glasgow isn't the issue, and therefore it must be something else.=|
Re: AGM Candidates - David Deary - 08-08-2013
Generally, I think there are a multitude of factors that lead to members not attending the AGM. venue/location and apathy are probably the biggest two.
Having the AGM broadcast say via Skype (as has been suggested) with members tuning in seems to me to be both logistically difficult and an absolute nightmare to chair. How would the chair even know if someone on Skype wanted to contribute? You couldn’t just have people interrupting. I personally, don’t think we have the right technology to have an interactive broadcast of the AGM.
On to proxy votes – they need to exist for those who cannot attend to cast their vote. Postal votes (also mentioned) would seem to be economically unviable. I’m not really sure where I stand in terms of limiting the proxies one individual can hold. At the end of the day if someone makes the choice to give their proxy to someone else then that should be respected as they have made the decision themselves. Also, having prescriptive proxy votes where the member indicates how they want their vote used for each election and proposal has advantages but what about AOCB or when a proposal is changed? It hardly seems fair to me that members who submitted a prescriptive proxy don’t get a vote then.
Food for thought in any case… Proxy votes are fraught with issues. I'm not really sure what the perfect system would be. :\
Re: AGM Candidates - KMcGeoch - 08-08-2013
I am eligible to attend AGM although don't intend to do so. I'll list reasons here.
1. First of all from my understanding main purpose of AGM is to elect office bearers. Since there are currently no contested seats I have a choice of one candidate (or in some cases zero candidates) to vote for so outcome is a foregone conclusion.
2. Even if I did turn up I don't really know all of the candidates nor what they stand for. If we hypothetically had a second candidate for any post only criteria I would have is do I like the guy and failing that have I heard of him. Things like how they would approach position and the ideas they intend to implement don't even enter decision process despite that being a critical issue.
In the end all I can hope for is people elected have best interests of game at heart and that they'll do a good job. I know several people who put in a lot of work and it is often taken for granted and unappreciated by the masses while there are other people who do work behind the scenes that I'm completely unaware even exists yet alone understand.
I suspect many people would be more interested if rather than being political and involving question of who gets elected that pre-AGM talk is more directed towards issues. For example recently chess scotland lost our grant that must be a pretty big hole in finances. I find a lot of voter apathy occurs when voters are unable to distinguish any tangible difference between choices proposed.
On the subject of proxy votes I am actually quite strongly opposed to it. Personally I feel that if someone isn't committed enough to turn up in person then they shouldn't vote. Only exception would be if someone sends their apology in advance in a public area stating they can't make meeting ideally with an excuse and have asked a specific person to vote as per their instructions since they cannot make it. Otherwise it's quite possible that I've cast proxy votes I'm completely unaware I've even given or that someone gets my vote cause I figure it's easier than declining if person asking makes it personal. Either way it should be a transparent process and before the meeting all the designated proxy votes should be public that way people can't hide proxy votes up their sleaves.
P.S. Is it possible to cast a proxy vote to vote on side with least proxy votes thus becoming an anti-proxy proxy vote =)
Re: AGM Candidates - Patrick McGovern - 08-08-2013
end or limit proxy votes and we may lose members rather than gain them. every member deserves a voice of some sort.