9 Comments

• Paul R 12th Nov '12 - 9:23am

  The problem with this survey is that the default answer tends to be “Yes, I want more democracy” without pausing to consider whether that is a clever idea. Taken to its logical conclusion it results in the undermining of representative democracy. It is after all “undemocratic”‘that the voting public don’t get to directly elect the Ministers for X, Y and Z, right? Yet, although widely popular politician A might be a shoe-in for any of those Ministerial positions in a direct election to those positions, there may be a very good reason, he never attains them under the current system – namely, his party colleagues consider him to be borderline if not actually crazy. That scenario always needs to be borne in mind when considering questions like the above.

• Louise Shaw 12th Nov '12 - 9:47am

  Great result!! Go Liberal DEMOCRATS!!

  Now we need to get some serious momentum around the push for reform.

• Dave Page 12th Nov '12 - 10:00am

  I’m a little depressed at how many respondents don’t realise the democratic problems with allowing all-member voting at Conference – it’ll skew party policy further towards the rich and those who live near Conference cities like Brighton.

  I’d be up for all-member voting once we’ve sorted out some kind of online voting system (though again we have to consider whether it’d outweigh a situation where the old, very poor and technically illiterate are disadvantaged), but certainly not before.

  Of course, these don’t apply to Federal Committee elections – given the near stasis in the election results year on year, some fresh blood in the voter pool might well be a good thing!

• Tom Papworth 12th Nov '12 - 11:16am

  It’s embarrassing that we still oppose one-person-one-vote. Many Lib Dems ridiculed the election of Ed Miliband as Labour leader because of the weird electoral college weightings, but we deny votes on major policy questions, and the right to choose our party’s executive, to our own grass roots members. It does put a big question mark over the “Democrat” bit of the party name.

  I do appreciate Paul R’s allusion to representative rather than direct democracy, though I’m not sure that the same logic applies to a party as it does to a country. Even so, we would expect every adult to be able to cast a vote for their representative – our current system has a two-tier approach where we choose the individuals who choose the Federal Executive, the Federal Conference Committee, etc.

  I also agree with Dave Page’s concerns, thought I think he may have misjudged the sentiment behind the vote: I imagine that most people meant that all members would be able to vote (remotely if necessary) rather than that anybody who could get to conference could vote. That was certainly my view. As it happens, my wife and I (who are both conference reps) were unable to attend because of financial and time constraints, so I think his concern about the rules empowering “the rich and those who live near Conference” is a real one: basically, Conference attendance is skewed towards the retired, those with very generous holiday allowances and the wealthy, and against the self-employed/small business owners, those with families and the poor.

• John 12th Nov '12 - 1:39pm

  What’s depressing is that two-thirds of voting “reps” don’t want the rest of the membership to have a say in party policy.

• Andrew Tennant 12th Nov '12 - 8:35pm

  It looks like we voting reps that support votes for all members have a challenge on our hands, but it’s a challenge I’m enthusiastic to take on. I know a number of reps are putting together a motion for Spring Conference, so, FCC willing, we’ll get to hear the case.

• A C McGregor 13th Nov '12 - 11:01am

  Interestingly, if you treat them as separate questions:

  38% support the current system of voting reps in internal party elections (46% of conference reps, 32% of non-reps)
  50% think all party members should be able to vote in internal party elections (48% of conf reps, 51% of non-reps)
  11% don’t know (6% of conf reps, 15% of non-reps)

  55% support the system of voting reps at conference (66% of conf reps, 47% of non-reps)
  33% think all party members should be able to vote at conference (28% of conf reps, 38% of non-reps)
  11% don’t know (6% of conf reps, 15% of non-reps)

  (1% rounding error on both)

  The almost exact opposite opinion when it comes to policy formation than internal election reflects on the likely worry that a policy setup based on pure population would bias policy decisions against geographical areas with fewer members, and could result in policies which then make it even harder for the smaller local parties to recruit and maintain membership and public interest.

• Suzanne 13th Nov '12 - 11:04am

  Of course we all want democracy, but it concerns me that
  1. voting in internal elections will mean that people not at conference will only “know” the big names, and maybe those that live in their region, so excellent people who represent us well on internal party committees, that we come across at conference, will not get a look in. There could be other ways of ensuring a better regional balance, but all member votes would do nothing at all to get someone in the NE elected.
  2. Voting for conference motions. 99% of the time I decide how to vote after listening to what people have to say in hte debate! also there is the opportunity to listen to what people have to say at fringe meetings and on any literature handed out, if at conference. There could be ways of some big issues being put to all the membership, but that is different.

• Louise Shaw 13th Nov '12 - 11:30am

  I hope to be a voting rep (i.e. not just a substitute) and support this as well Andrew.