Subscribe to our feed
Follow us on twitterPPUK Governors - proposed election method
7th June 2010 23:10 | by John Barron
The internal election for the Board of Governors will soon be coming up.
This is a little different to internal elections we have held so far, because there are 12 positions to be filled, and which do not have separate responsibilities until the elected Board choose to assign roles from within those elected. Also, we have already had more candidates nominated than there are positions available, so this will be a contested election and not all hopeful candidates will be successful.
Single transferable vote
Since there are many positions to be filled at once, it's been proposed that we implement some form of single transferable vote for this election. This at once both makes some sense and gives us some challenges, to make this possible.
Voting implementation
The current proposal is that the present member voting system be enhanced to allow a preference list up to the number of positions available (but not requiring 12 selections; only as many as voting members wish to choose). The vote preferences will then be collected up, and put into a standard text format ready for counting. The vote list will also be released once the vote is complete for members to verify as desired, without any voter-identifying information/comprising details of the election candidates and the vote preferences chosen only.
This is subject to Tom and the web team confirming the practicality of this, which is being discussed and we will update as that is determined.
Counting the results
For counting the results, we propose to use the Open STV software. This is used by other organisations, rather than being developed specifically within PPUK, and is open source. Members will therefore be able to download the Open STV software, run it against the released ballot file themselves, and also analyse/debug the software as they please, in addition to manually analysing the count process if desired. Note that this part does not provide any guarantee of the integrity of the vote preference results released in the ballot file - but it does make the count process entirely transparent. The software also produces a detailed list of the stage/transfer counts and elections/eliminations.
Re-open nominations
Given the proposed vote implementation, we do not propose to offer a "re-open nominations" choice. This was considered, however there are some issues of practice and of theory with doing so, in a large multi-member election such as is proposed. As we need to implement our first Board and an excess of candidates have been nominated, we believe this is the best choice presently available.
Method of STV counting
The method of STV counting has not yet been selected, the intention is that we will discuss the options at the next NEC meeting (14 June), from those supported by the OpenSTV software, and determine which will be used for the Board elections this time. Some of these have particular merits and demerits, comments on this are most welcome.
Conclusion
This post is to make you aware of what we are proposing, and invite comment to assist the NEC in making a final decision on the election mechanism prior to the nomination period closing and the polls opening.
The NEC has proposed that I act as Election Officer for this election - hm...! Okay, it may be however that the Board proposes future provisions for internal Election/Returning officer which will supersede this. It's also been suggested that fulfilling this role could become a permanent responsibility of the elected Nominating Officer; if that happened, and while I serve, it is certainly one I would seek to delegate as soon as a suitable appointee came forward (and I'd certainly consider appointing such for this election, or at least to assist me in that).
25 comments
peterbrett wrote: This should be a front page blog post, really.
Agreed
peterbrett wrote: This should be a front page blog post, really.
I thought about that, and who the intended audience for it is, and I wasn't instantly convinced. To me the front page blog is for external communication, more than internal communication. This post is a bit "technical", and inward-facing, I wasn't immediately comfortable putting it on our front page.
However, I can be convinced otherwise
, and if there's a feeling it should be so, it's been the case that a blog post has begun life in the forum and then been transposed. If so please feel free to lift/repost accordingly!
johnb wrote: Voting implementation
The current proposal is that the present member voting system be enhanced to allow a preference list up to the number of positions available (but not requiring 12 selections; only as many as voting members wish to choose). The vote preferences will then be collected up, and put into a standard text format ready for counting. The vote list will also be released once the vote is complete for members to verify as desired, without any voter-identifying information/comprising details of the election candidates and the vote preferences chosen only.
I'm a bit worried about this. Why? Because we at least have more candidates that positions (good!), 15 people running for 10 positions.
The problem I have is I don't think there are ten candidates of high calibar, slightly less. However If I don't cast all my 10 ranked votes I'm not using all my vote up.
I'd complain more but I expect few people will feel the same as me so never mind.
12 seats, not 10
And surely that's the point of STV - you can rank those you don't approve of the lowest.
Plus, there's still a week and a bit left for people to nominate themselves, so maybe some more candidates you approve of will come forward.
andrewtindall wrote: And surely that's the point of STV - you can rank those you don't approve of the lowest.
Or not at all, effectively abstaining from the vote if no candidate you prefer reaches the winning threshold.
I didn't really want to run myself due to time commitments, but I'm not happy how the line up is looking. Given these are 5 year positions booting two people off a list of 14 and calling it democracy is not something I'm happy with. In fact, it would be easier and more transparent to have a negative vote, so vote off two people and everyone else gets in. (unless the ranking is used as a mandate later of course). BTW sorry for not bringing this up at the meeting John.
I would like to propose a reduction in the term from 5 years to 1 year to factor in the fact that these postions are insufficiently contested, to allow a more mature election with agreed roles (agreed by this upcoming board!) to happen in 1 years time. I'm not sure what process I need to follow to make this happen 'last minute' but I think this should happen.
Perhaps you and the rest of us should be doing our best to recruit more applications instead of reducing the term.
it'll be for the board to put forward an amendment to reduce the max term from 5 years. but also bear in mind, it's no less than 5 years, and based on the NEC elections, you can expect it will probably be more frequent than that.
andrewtindall wrote: it'll be for the board to put forward an amendment to reduce the max term from 5 years. but also bear in mind, it's no less than 5 years, and based on the NEC elections, you can expect it will probably be more frequent than that.
The reason I'm bringing this up prior is because I don't think it'd be in the boards self-interest to reduce their own terms.
see MPs auditing expenses, lords discussing lords reform, the queen, etc etc.
borgs8472 wrote:andrewtindall wrote: it'll be for the board to put forward an amendment to reduce the max term from 5 years. but also bear in mind, it's no less than 5 years, and based on the NEC elections, you can expect it will probably be more frequent than that.
The reason I'm bringing this up prior is because I don't think it'd be in the boards self-interest to reduce their own terms.
I don't see why anyone on the board would have "self-interest" and be unwilling to discuss reduced terms.
borgs8472 wrote:andrewtindall wrote: it'll be for the board to put forward an amendment to reduce the max term from 5 years. but also bear in mind, it's no less than 5 years, and based on the NEC elections, you can expect it will probably be more frequent than that.
The reason I'm bringing this up prior is because I don't think it'd be in the boards self-interest to reduce their own terms.
I would hope PPUK members have a bit more integrity than parliamentarians.
Plus, many candidates have expressed that one of their primary goals after being elected to the board would be to specify the powers of the board - indeed tomorrow, as a candidate, i will be drafting an amendment to address this, meaning the board can get to work of it as soon as possible.
borgs8472 wrote:andrewtindall wrote: it'll be for the board to put forward an amendment to reduce the max term from 5 years. but also bear in mind, it's no less than 5 years, and based on the NEC elections, you can expect it will probably be more frequent than that.
The reason I'm bringing this up prior is because I don't think it'd be in the boards self-interest to reduce their own terms.
FWIW... The NEC of the day could (as an operational decision) AIUI under the current constitution hold a new governor election within less than that time, if it seemed necessary, such as for example if the active Board dropped below seven individuals and therefore became unable to transact business. But... in that case, the NEC wouldn't get to choose the new board, or who was re-elected, PPUK members would.
Unless other constitutional arrangements were both proposed by the board, and approved by a vote of all members, which we will all have time to comment on.
Separation of powers (executive vs governance) has advantages
borgs8472 wrote: The problem I have is I don't think there are ten candidates of high calibar, slightly less. However If I don't cast all my 10 ranked votes I'm not using all my vote up.
As a candidate, No one's exactly been questioning us in our threads in the BoG threads, or even giving feedback. For example I've drafted some amendments I'd like to see (and would try to implement if elected); the wider party hasn't given any feedback at all - I got one response from another candidate. You can't blame us candidates if we're not being pressed and questioned.
vj wrote: As a candidate, No one's exactly been questioning us in our threads in the BoG threads, or even giving feedback.
I wonder if members are scared at getting a lengthy reply if they do ask a question
borgs8472 wrote: I don't want to question most candidates because everyone is very enthusiastic about doing this. I worry if I press them in the ways that I would, some will drop out and there'll be even less choice which is not something I want.
If people would withdraw their nomination based solely on some question, they probably shouldn't be running to begin with.
borgs8472 wrote: I don't want to question most candidates because everyone is very enthusiastic about doing this. I worry if I press them in the ways that I would, some will drop out and there'll be even less choice which is not something I want.
Surely it's better to have fewer board members than a full board with some particularly weak members? It's much better to get potential problems out in the air sooner rather than later IMHO.
borgs8472 wrote: I don't want to question most candidates because everyone is very enthusiastic about doing this. I worry if I press them in the ways that I would, some will drop out and there'll be even less choice which is not something I want.
Press away!!
Edit: That said, I was thinking to myself that as nominations are still open it's perfectly reasonable to wait before asking questions. Though, after some more thinking, if questions were to cause people to drop out perhaps it would be best for them to do so while nominations were still open so others could step up.
peterbrett wrote: Surely it's better to have fewer board members than a full board with some particularly weak members? It's much better to get potential problems out in the air sooner rather than later IMHO.
Well I wasn't going to be that mean. Maybe I was, I don't know. Having fewer people in the running whilst comprising of stronger candidates, will not then be voted in, just set selected in. :/
Steve, I wasn't planning on grilling you but I could if you really want.
azrael wrote:borgs8472 wrote: I don't want to question most candidates because everyone is very enthusiastic about doing this. I worry if I press them in the ways that I would, some will drop out and there'll be even less choice which is not something I want.
Press away!!
Yes, please, ask me things - there needs to be a healthy debate, but that can only be achieved with the participation of the wider membership - Think of the BoG threads as a virtual hustings.
If some drop out, then perhaps standing in this election isn't for them. Better we find this out now than after they've been elected. 
borgs8472 wrote: Steve, I wasn't planning on grilling you but I could if you really want.
Yes, I want grilled. Preferably with cheese and worcestershire sauce