AGM Candidates

[George Murphy]

If memory serves, when John Dempsey was Executive Director a few years back, it was a rule that candidates for election had to post a ‘manifesto’ on the Board in advance of the AGM. Very few candidates complied. Instead, the practice was adopted whereby an electoral address was made to the AGM. This meant , of course, that CS members who could not attend missed out - or were lucky, depending on the quality of the address.

So, yes. In an ideal world we would have pen portraits and manifestoes. But, till that day, our practice is not very dissimilar to what happens in national and local elections. These are organised so that otherwise absentees may cast their vote and influence the outcome. The ‘magic’ device is the postal vote. But, this facility is so organised that campaigners cannot manipulate votes. That would be electoral fraud - a criminal offence.

To an extent, our proxy vote mirrors the postal vote. The difference lies in how it is organised. 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.

[WBuchanan]

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.

[amuir]

Solution: no-one should have more than 3 proxies

[robin moore]

From the ChessScotland constitution.


5 Voting

5.1 Every Individual, Club and Affiliate member of Chess Scotland shall have one vote at a General Meeting, but no member whose subscription is in arrears shall be entitled to exercise that vote.

5.2 Each Club and Affiliate member shall nominate a single proxy representative to the Executive Director at least one week before the General Meeting, which failing, their most recent nominee shall be deemed to hold their proxy vote.

5.3 Proxies are permitted if lodged in writing or by e-mail at least one week before a General Meeting, and, in the case of Individual members aged under 16, endorsed in writing or by e-mail by the member's parent or guardian.

5.4 Where an Individual member is under the age of sixteen, one parent or guardian of that Individual member is granted an automatic proxy vote on behalf of the Individual member if the member concerned is not voting in his or her own right. Individual members under the age of 12 at the date of any meeting can only vote by automatic proxy.

5.5 Persons receiving proxy votes must be:

· An Individual member of Chess Scotland or;

· A committee member of the Club or Affiliate member if nominated under 5.2 or;

· A legal parent or guardian if nominated under 5.4 .

5.6 Corporate members do not have voting rights.

5.7 At Council meetings, each member of COUNCIL shall have one deliberative vote.

5.8 At General Meetings and Council meetings, the chairman (normally the President) shall have a casting vote in addition to his or her deliberative vote.

[David G Congalton]

Solution: no-one should have more than 3 proxies

I wholeheartedly agree with Andrew Muir on the principle of this. Three seems like a reasonable number although I would be more inclined to align with the UK electoral system.

Who can vote on my behalf?

Anyone can be your proxy as long as they are eligible to vote in that type of election and they are willing to vote on your behalf.

You cannot be a proxy for more than two people at any one election, unless they are a close relative.

More questions about voting by proxy? Have a look at our Frequently Asked Questions.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/how_do_i_vote/voting_by_proxy.aspx">http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/how_do_i_v ... proxy.aspx</a><!-- m -->

However, the issue with Chess Scotland is the diverse location of the members in relation to the location of the AGM. George Murphy's suggestion -

To an extent, our proxy vote mirrors the postal vote. The difference lies in how it is organised. 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.

would address the issue in relation to voting for positions on the board and council, while the suggestion of broadcasting the meeting via the internet has been muted at previous meetings and may offer a solution to those residing a distance from the AGM venue, who would like to influence or be influenced by the discussions on the AGM motions. This would save time and money for those who would otherwise have to travel some distance to exercise their right as a CS member.

I believe the CS system of proxy voting has been on the radar for some time but has not been targeted. Perhaps, if this has not already been addressed by a competent motion, it could be brought up under AOCB, with a view to having a small group of people examine the options and make recommendations to the membership for discussion at an EGM.

[WBuchanan]

Solution: no-one should have more than 3 proxies

I wholeheartedly agree with Andrew Muir on the principle of this. Three seems like a reasonable number although I would be more inclined to align with the UK electoral system.

That's the same as saying "no more than three people may entrust a particular person with their vote" - i.e. it places obstacles before certain voters, so could be viewed as manipulative. The vote is owned by the voter, not the postman.

[robin moore]

From the constitution

13.6 Any proposals for consideration at the AGM must be received by the Executive Director in writing (including e-mail) at least three weeks before the meeting, and must be proposed and seconded by members.

13.7 The Executive Director shall publish all nominations for elections and proposals for consideration at least two weeks before the meeting. It shall be deemed sufficient to publish these details on the Chess Scotland internet site and where possible to contact all members by e-mail.

I also feel there should be limits on the number of proxy votes any one individual member may be able to "cast".
In the modern world we now live in, with computer access/skype etc, it would be useful to at least have a basic discussion of future options at this year's AGM with a view to giving as many members as possible an option to use their vote in "real time". Obviously, I don't know if any proposals for this year's AGM may include an option to discuss this but if not, can someone clarify if it could be included under AOCB, despite the timescale for proposals for this year's event having elapsed?

Sorry, just reread David's post and I apologise if I am appearing repetitive.

[George Murphy]

Hmm …

‘Fanning the flames …’ If that’s the impression I created, then I did not express myself well.

That electoral fraud is a crime is a fact, not an opinion. That is why in our electoral system, the postal vote is so tightly monitored. The system to which David Congalton alludes also recognises the danger by restricting the number of proxies that any individual can represent. Robin Moore quotes from Chess Scotland’s constitution, which is fine so far as it goes. But, if Andy Muir can cite an instance wherein that same constitution permits a certain Mr X to wield disproportionate influence by commanding Y number of proxy votes, then he may bear the stamp of authority. But, without broadly based consent, however efficient his administration may be, it is likely to arouse growing division. Really, all that Andy’s example suggests is that the CS constitution could do with a bit of redrafting to prevent the emergence of such a Mr Big.

Ultimately, all politics is subjective and based on opinion - some would say values. But, I hope too that a society such as ours can be consensual. Certainly, this requires transparency of information and the free expression of views whereby issues can be examined and modified. It also requires mutual respect.

I believe David Congalton is right and that the issue of the proxy vote does pop up from time to time. But, it’s an elusive concept. Whether technology would overcome this difficulty by allowing CS members to follow and even contribute to discussion at an AGM, I am not qualified to say. It’s an interesting idea.

I am a great believer in freedom of speech. But, it comes with responsibility. A good speaker is first a good listener.

‘Fanning the flames …’ Dear me, I gave up smoking more years ago than I care to remember.

[WBuchanan]

Thanks George for further elucidation.

“That electoral fraud is a crime is a fact, not an opinion.”

True, but what is called electoral fraud is open to interpretation. Eg in the UK successive governments have been gerrymandering boundaries to their benefit probably for as long as there has been a general election. The US were accused of placing financial and other obstacles dressed up as security in the way of black voters. And they didn’t count all the votes. Either or both of the last two Republican victories may have been rigged.

This just does not compare with the legitimate use of proxy votes, so I don’t know why you are talking about crime. Also you say

“permits a certain Mr X to wield disproportionate influence by commanding Y number of proxy votes”

What does disproportionate mean, other than you don’t like the outcome? A proxy vote is a vote – votes aren’t much use if you don’t add them up. Presumably a Mr X couldn’t walk into the AGM unannounced and dump 60 proxy votes on the table and declare himself elected – he would have to already be a candidate, declared weeks in advance. That’s plenty of time for people opposed to him to run their own opposition campaign.

What is proposed is essentially a new weighting system, similar to the one proposed by Andy Muir that was ridiculed. What’s to stop a Mr Big from asking supporters to send in postal votes anyway?

“It also requires mutual respect.”

Yes, at all times. No offence meant George, but I think many of the comments regarding Mr Big/Mr X would not be considered respectful as it seems they had a particular person in mind. More to the point, fiddling with the system to ‘stop’ someone is very undemocratic.

But we are agreed upon things like the transparency of information and the free expression of views, and examining and modifying (other) issues. So let’s have them! Cheers..

[Phil Thomas]

Attendees at 2012 agm ....26
Members at 31 July 2013 ...... 572
Projected maximum proxy votes per attendee.... 3

Time for a simple sum.

Percentage disenfranchised by proposed new rule - unless attendance increases = 81.8%

Does not look very democratic to me.