07-08-2013, 05:12 PM
George Murphy Wrote:Instead of trusting Harry, Dick or Tom to do one’s bidding, the CS member who wishes to cast a proxy vote should be required to send in his vote to the Executive Director - or other appointed CS official - by a cut-off date. This would prevent the creation and manipulation of bloc voting, which is a pernicious practice that allows sectionalism to outweigh the general interest. It is a practice that is undemocratic and unethical. It is one that is too often adopted within Chess Scotland - not only in elections - but also, for example, most recently in deciding the viability of the Standards Committee.
Criminal, unethical, pernicious...that's fanning the flames a bit George? But this is all very subjective - who determines what is in the general interest? Criticism that certain actions are 'undemocratic' assumes the democracy is functioning 'democratically' in the first place. In general, I mean. But to take an example from the thread, if there are rules about manifestos, is it not 'undemocratic' to allow candidates to ignore them? What's democratic about having to choose who to vote for without knowing what each person will do - or indeed, not even knowing what are the main issues they will be facing?
Democracy even at its best is quite limited though, as it functions largely through influence and manipulation (which is why I can't get fired up about evil sectionalism). But there are some basic democratic tenets - like people have to be informed of the issues, and candidates stance on them. There has to be transparency of information, and the opportunity for meaningful and free discussion of the issues. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean that if an organisation is not run democratically that it's not run well - that's a different question. Sometimes I think a pretence at democracy gets in the way.