The Psephological Society: Our Vision of Governance

[peterl]

Having agreed the principle of establishing a formal Psephological Society and having agreed a Mission Statement, the next step is to agree a way to govern the Society. As I have said previously, it would be very desirable to have an elected council in addition to an executive leader of some sort. The reason for this is to ensure political representation and prevent any sense that we are controlled by any one party.

This is my proposal. There will be no poll at present as I think we need to debate the details of this and I am open to any amendments or counter proposals.

The Council of the Society

- A directly elected President of the Council. Election will be on a two round system with a second actual round of voting if no one achieves an absolute majority.
- Other members of the Council will be in the form of an elected member to represent each qualifying party. A party qualifies if they are a British or Northern Ireland Party registered with the Electoral Commission and are represented in Parliament, the European Parliament or any of the devolved assemblies or have at least 50 principal councillors on at least two different councils. Any member of the party who is a member of the Society may stand for election. One seat is reserved for independents and members of local resident's groups. Elections where contested will be from the respective party groupings on first past the post. Where there is only one candidate, a yes/no ballot will be held. All elections to be handed by secret ballot by private message to a designated returning officer, the RO not to be a candidate for election to the seat in question.
- The President may appoint any member of the Council to any other particular position he sees as desirable, e.g. Vice President, Treasurer, Membership Secretary, spokesman on any particular issues.
- The Council may co-opt anyone with relevant expertise in their discretion.
- Elections will initially be annually, subject to revision.
- Casual vacancies to be filled by a by election. The Council may co-opt if no candidates have stood for election. People co-opted in this way hold office until the next annual election.
- Changes to these rules require the approval of a majority of members.
- If there are any disputes about an election, the Council may resolve the dispute at their discretion and may if desired appoint one or more members of the Council to resolve the matter.
- Any member may stand for election provided that they are a member of a qualifying party if standing for a party seat and have been an active member of this forum for at least 12 months. This time limit may be waived at the discretion of the Council. No deposits or fees are payable and no seconders or assentors are required.
- All members of this forum are presumed to be members of the Society unless a person chooses to opt out by notice to the President of the Council.

This is an initial proposal to get the ball rolling. I am not absolutely wedded to any of these provisions, barring the need to avoid a potential situation of people from any one party having control of the Society. Thoughts, reactions and amendments welcomed.

[warofdreams]

Thanks for putting this proposal together! My initial thoughts are:

* I'm sure there will debate on the best form of election; I'd prefer STV
* Also there's a discussion to be had about which positions (if any) should be directly elected. I think having one president with such sweeping powers undermines the attempts to have a broad representative council - a president could presumably decide not to give any responsibilities to political opponents
* Co-opted members should be non-voting, otherwise there's a danger they will skew the political balance of the council
* I like the idea of attempting to get a broad range of council members by having party seats, but it seems unjustified to give e.g. People Before Profit one seat, and the Conservatives or Labour also one. Given that some parties are allied, and to allow party members with views unpopular in their own parties to stand a chance of election, I'd suggest an open ballot, with all candidates declaring party memberships (if any), and no more than half the council minus one (or some other arbitrary number) holding the same affiliation
* Annual elections, process on casual vacancies, majority vote to change rules, etc, seems sensible
* Need to define what counts as an active member of the forum (one post? one log-in?); should non-forum members be able to stand to bring additional expertise?
* I suspect there may be legal problems with providing membership on an opt-out basis

[greenchristian]

Reserving committee slots for particular parties has to be balanced with slots for people who aren't members of any party, and those who are members of non-qualifying parties. But I think we can all agree that the society cannot be allowed to be dominated by members of any one party.

Also, if we're defining membership with reference to forum membership, requiring changes of the rules to have the approval of the majority of the membership will have practical problems, as many forum members won't care enough to opt out, and those who aren't even active members on here probably won't even be aware of any proposed rules changes - so they can't have a view either way.

[BossMan]

Jan 22, 2017 22:19:49 GMT @jamesdowden said:

I don't wish to offend anyone, but quite frankly this all sounds too tedious for words. I just don't see the need, especially if it means additional pompous twats with superpowers wandering this forum being officious, even if they're elected rather than appointed.

Don't worry, I won't allow pompous twats with superpowers wandering this forum being officious. (your words)

What might be helpful, if this is to go any further, is for people to come forward and say what they would actually be prepared to do to help lobby for improvement of election administration and information - which is what this is all about. This is your chance to tell us, if you want to tell us.

[peterl]

Jan 22, 2017 22:19:49 GMT @jamesdowden said:

I don't wish to offend anyone, but quite frankly this all sounds too tedious for words. I just don't see the need, especially if it means additional pompous twats with superpowers wandering this forum being officious, even if they're elected rather than appointed.

Well frankly no one is forcing you to participate in anything. Equally, if some of us choose to form a society with a committee and office holders, in a similar way to thousands of societies interested in all sort of different things, that need not concern or affect you in any way. The purpose would not be to give anyone "superpowers" and about the limit of powers anyone would be given on this forum is (maybe) a private forum for the council and (perhaps) moderation powers over that forum for the President that might fit with the role of "chairing" the council. Neither of those things being musts, just possibilities.

To give my two-penneth worth to the comments people have made on this.

* I'm sure there will debate on the best form of election; I'd prefer STV

Clearly this will be a contentious matter on a political forum. Of course with STV, there is no possibility of individual elections.

* Also there's a discussion to be had about which positions (if any) should be directly elected. I think having one president with such sweeping powers undermines the attempts to have a broad representative council - a president could presumably decide not to give any responsibilities to political opponents

Well under these rules no one party could have more than two seats (one allocated seat plus the president). I do not think it is obvious what specific positions we may want at this point which is the reason for the flexibility.

* Co-opted members should be non-voting, otherwise there's a danger they will skew the political balance of the council

I agree with this.

* I like the idea of attempting to get a broad range of council members by having party seats, but it seems unjustified to give e.g. People Before Profit one seat, and the Conservatives or Labour also one. Given that some parties are allied, and to allow party members with views unpopular in their own parties to stand a chance of election, I'd suggest an open ballot, with all candidates declaring party memberships (if any), and no more than half the council minus one (or some other arbitrary number) holding the same affiliation

There are problems with that, one party could still become pretty dominant even if just short of a majority. A "coalition" of two friendly parties could easily take over control. But a sort of proportional allocation of seats might be an idea. i.e. if there are ten seats on the council, and 20% of members are Labour, then Labour get two seats.

* Need to define what counts as an active member of the forum (one post? one log-in?); should non-forum members be able to stand to bring additional expertise?I suspect there may be legal problems with providing membership on an opt-out basis.

How about at least 100 posts and has posted within the last 30 days. RO decides any disputes. The reason to coordinate everything around the forum is to avoid having to maintain mailing lists and such from day one. In time, we can review that situation.

Reserving committee slots for particular parties has to be balanced with slots for people who aren't members of any party, and those who are members of non-qualifying parties. But I think we can all agree that the society cannot be allowed to be dominated by members of any one party.

Well I suggested one seat for non-party members, that could be more. Perhaps one seat for independents and one for smaller parties. It will be important to maintain a fine balance here as you say.

Also, if we're defining membership with reference to forum membership, requiring changes of the rules to have the approval of the majority of the membership will have practical problems, as many forum members won't care enough to opt out, and those who aren't even active members on here probably won't even be aware of any proposed rules changes - so they can't have a view either way.

We can maintain a register of members. Though that means someone will have to do that job from day one.

What might be helpful, if this is to go any further, is for people to come forward and say what they would actually be prepared to do to help lobby for improvement of election administration and information - which is what this is all about. This is your chance to tell us, if you want to tell us.

I would be prepared to play my part in the administration of the society and have a lot of relevant knowledge to contribute to consultations and such. I am legally qualified and quite knowledgable about election law with significant personal experience as a candidate and agent.

[greatkingrat]

Jan 23, 2017 12:00:03 GMT peterl said:

Well frankly no one is forcing you to participate in anything. Equally, if some of us choose to form a society with a committee and office holders, in a similar way to thousands of societies interested in all sort of different things, that need not concern or affect you in any way. The purpose would not be to give anyone "superpowers" and about the limit of powers anyone would be given on this forum is (maybe) a private forum for the council and (perhaps) moderation powers over that forum for the President that might fit with the role of "chairing" the council. Neither of those things being musts, just possibilities.

But you are forcing people to be members whether they have any interest in the society or not, unless they go out of their way to specifically "opt-out".

[Deleted]

Jan 22, 2017 22:19:49 GMT @jamesdowden said:

I don't wish to offend anyone, but quite frankly this all sounds too tedious for words. I just don't see the need, especially if it means additional pompous twats with superpowers wandering this forum being officious, even if they're elected rather than appointed.

This.

We're not so sad as to create this bizarre version of the Stonecutters from the Simpsons or whatever.

[BossMan]

Jan 24, 2017 20:23:07 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

Jan 22, 2017 22:19:49 GMT @jamesdowden said:

I don't wish to offend anyone, but quite frankly this all sounds too tedious for words. I just don't see the need, especially if it means additional pompous twats with superpowers wandering this forum being officious, even if they're elected rather than appointed.

This.

We're not so sad as to create this bizarre version of the Stonecutters from the Simpsons or whatever.

[Deleted]

LOL. I know every word

[peterl]

Look, in the thread on the Mission Statement a majority of those voting agreed to create a formal society. Perhaps active sign-up will have to be used so that no one is forced into something they don't agree with. If you disagree with the specifics then say so. But if you are against the whole idea, you can just ignore us boring people standing over in the corner watching re-runs of old elections.

[Deleted]

Jan 24, 2017 21:25:49 GMT peterl said:

Look, in the thread on the Mission Statement a majority of those voting agreed to create a formal society. Perhaps active sign-up will have to be used so that no one is forced into something they don't agree with. If you disagree with the specifics then say so. But if you are against the whole idea, you can just ignore us boring people standing over in the corner watching re-runs of old elections.

I will happily stand in a corner watching re-runs of old elections. I will happily support *a* psephological organisation where appropriate. I will not be shepherded into some bizarre mix of "Nationstates" and a gentleman's club with an opt-out clause.

[peterl]

Opt-out membership is hereby dropped. Please see the other thread entitled "membership".

[BossMan]

Okay. My personal thoughts now are that there is clearly little enthusiasm nor interest in establishing a formal organisation and there doesn't seem to be any realistic prospect of going down that route any further. Now, that is not a point of view I want to impose on anyone else but it's a frank personal assessment.

As this year's batch of elections approaches, however, I would be keen to create a few threads - perhaps a new sub-board - specifically to identify where there is room for improvement in terms of electoral administration and provision of information regarding elections up and down the country - from which we could feed back our findings to local authorities, Electoral Commission and so on.
This obviously isn't a new concept to many of us but I would like to gently encourage as many people as possible to give their £0.02 worth, for instance to post quick summaries on the quality of their local council website - such as whether all election results can be found on a single webpage or one has to click on over 50 links to find them all. That sort of thing.

I think this approach is a more realistic way forward and this whole issue is something we could hopefully give a great deal more emphasis going forward.

[andrewteale]

I'm reminded in all this of the Mastermind Club, which I'm a member of. The Mastermind Club was spawned by the TV programme and its membership is open only to anybody who has passed the Black Chair. It publishes a quarterly magazine, runs an annual weekend social function with more frequent meetups for drinks in various cities (none of which I've ever got to) and, as far as I can tell, that's it. According to Magnus Magnusson's history of the programme, it had a fairly rocky start because it's based on people being sufficiently bothered and having the organisational skills to actually do things - if you're good enough to get onto Mastermind you're probably smarter than the average bear, but good organisational skills do not necessarily follow from this. There are perhaps around 1,000 members, of whom the majority will do nothing except pay the membership fee and read the magazine every few months.

That membership base is already quite a lot more than this forum. According to the front page as I write this, we have 869 members of whom 161 have visited the forum at some point in the last 24 hours, and not all of them will have posted something in the last 24 hours. At some point before Christmas there was a thread mooting the idea of one or more meetups for drinks among forum members, and to my knowledge it never happened. Let's be realistic: if we can't organise a pissup, the idea of a society is not going to get off the ground.

Moreover, some of the proposed aims of the society are rapidly becoming obsolete. Who on the forum is aware of this? I've not been involved with it but I have been to a couple of workshops of various interested parties: it's the government's answer to all the moans and frustrations we have had over having 450 different council websites with 450 different formats. If it gets off the ground it'll be a gamechanger in the field of local electoral information - and it's got the support of the companies who supply electoral software to local councils, so there's reason to believe it will get off the ground. It didn't take a Psephological Society to get this far; it took some lobbying from academics, professionals and the occasional enthusiast who have (a) the experience of hacking at the electoral coalface and, more importantly (b) a budget. Some of us may be prepared to put the time in at the electoral coalface, but that's not a substitute for having a budget.

BossMan 's ideas are good ones, although I have doubts that the Electoral Commission would be all that interested in any feedback we can provide.  But it's a step forward.  Another step forward would be to organise a meeting for forum members on licensed premises...

[Foggy]

Jan 24, 2017 22:58:55 GMT BossMan said:

This obviously isn't a new concept to many of us but I would like to gently encourage as many people as possible to give their £0.02 worth, for instance to post quick summaries on the quality of their local council website - such as whether all election results can be found on a single webpage or one has to click on over 50 links to find them all. That sort of thing.

I had a go at that 5 weeks ago, as requested by your dormant account. Of course, that post relates to information on the council website as it appeared at the time and only covers the authority responsible for elections where I'm living at the moment. 

[greenchristian]

Jan 24, 2017 20:23:07 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

Jan 22, 2017 22:19:49 GMT @jamesdowden said:

I don't wish to offend anyone, but quite frankly this all sounds too tedious for words. I just don't see the need, especially if it means additional pompous twats with superpowers wandering this forum being officious, even if they're elected rather than appointed.

This.

We're not so sad as to create this bizarre version of the Stonecutters from the Simpsons or whatever.

We could always rename it to the Society of No Doks, if you'd prefer.

[peterl]

Whether or not we have a formal structure, responding to consultations as an organisation will I think have some mileage.

As for the formal structure, if a few people get in touch with me, we can see about what can be done. This really does not require a majority of people on the forum to agree to it and will happen if a few people desire it.

[Harry Hayfield]

On the discussions of bad examples of information for us psephlogists, may I nominate Western Isles Council and South Lanarkshire Council as nowhere on their websites can I find a list of duly nominated candidates

[greatkingrat]

They are both there, but I agree they are not easy to find.

www.southlanarkshire.gov.uk/downloads/download/907/
www.cne-siar.gov.uk/electionoffice/lg2017/notices.asp