I have always been in favour of having local elections (I am talking about elections at branch level) where every member of the branch gets the chance to decide and cast their vote. There is the argument against this because of the cost but I think there is a greater cost to real democracy when we consider the risks of having officers elected by a small majority of what could be anything from 5% to 10% of the overall membership in other words those able to turn up.
If we use my own branch as an example, a very active, diverse branch, we have attendance of between 140 to 200 members at AGM's. This is a good result in comparative terms but being elected by a simple majority (like I have been on many occasions) at these annual meetings is not the right way to do it. This is a reform that needs to be looked at and a rule change needs to come from either within the branches themselves or a national policy needs to be implemented to ensure that this change takes place. I am sure that true democrats will have nothing to fear about!! How can anyone disagree that those not able to attend a meeting should get the chance to make a decision on how their union is runned? This debate must start soon! One member one vote!
A question that is now up for debate in Islington Branch. Is it more democratic thou? The turn in NEC elections is between 5 and 10% also. What the experience of branches that have elected officer by postal ballot? When we have had elections it has increase the turnout for the AGM indeed I was once elected with 199 votes and with around 120 for my opponents. If the officers and committee member of the region were elected by postal ballot we currently may end up with no quorate regional councils although the results may be more favourable. BTW should elections be by AV?
ReplyDeleteHello Andrew,
ReplyDeleteThose are indeed the questions and of course there are arguments on both sides. On the other hand Jon of the Rogers (our glorious leader) has had a better chance elected via ballot (and so did Glen of the Kelly) on the other hand Jon of the Rogers lost a few elections where the voting was done at big meetings? In other words I am answering your points by illustrating what I mean through examples that are relevant to all of us? The question, in my mind, is whether a postal ballot is more inclusive and therefore more democratic and that should determine the answer I think. You might find that John of the Gray agrees to keeping things as they are? Not sure..
I not sure that passive democracy is a good thing, I would generally go for more participatory democracy were you can hear the argument and vote in the context of the current political situation locally, regionally and nationally. As for John Gray I care very little for what he thinks that why I don’t comment on his blog.
ReplyDeleteWe tried to introduce this in my branch in London some years ago but we had a huge problem getting an AGM together with enough people let alone achieving a two thirds majority. I think your suggestion of passing this on to national conference is an excellent one so that it can become a national rule and then branches would have to implement it. How do we start the ball rolling? I don't agree that left group would oppose this. Why should they?
ReplyDeleteVincent
Andrew
ReplyDeleteI take your comment about passive democracy but then would argue that the activity or involvement from the member voting comes from having the time to read and consider all the arguments which are presented in writing and then make a decision and vote. Those not able to attend do not have the opportunity to vote then? What about the 100s of social workers or school based staff who are not able to be at the AGM?
I note your comments about John Gray but I don't think he means it..
Vincent Anon at 16.39
ReplyDeletePerhaps you can tell us which branch you refer to I think there are 152 in the whole of London? But thanks for agreeing.