This is an issue that pops up fairly regularly in the Liberal Democrats, with some internal contests seeing candidates given contact details for the electorate (e.g. when selecting Westminster Parliamentary candidates) but others not (e.g. federal committee elections).
So it’s interesting to see how a similar debate is playing out in another party. The Greens are currently electing their (first) leader, and this contest has included a dispute over whether the candidates should be given members’ details. Jim Kilock’s posting from last month (and the comments to it) seems to give a good flavour of the arguments being used on both sides.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Raising a flap about letterboxes
Arriving at one of East Finchley's ghost platforms
Restrained
Chase Park fair photos
A swamp of lies and disinformation
Nigel Jones
Katharine Pindar
13 Comments
As a party we live off our ability to contact electors. We believe in maximising political participation and many of us advocate local election freepost in order to improve and increase elector contact. Focus is a way of life.
Then suddenly we turn to our own elections and subject ourselves to a set of arcane procedures which we would be in arms about if they were imposed by the Electoral Commission.
On the other there is the financial / fairness aspect. The Greens are obviously beating themselves up over this as much as we would. Surely there is some fair way beyond what we allow today? Perhaps a mailing to all members encouraging them to visit candidate websites, or web pages on a central party elections site? There are few members now who don’t have web access, except for the very elderly and surely this could be provided by invitation to a local ‘electronic’ husting?
Mark, you’re Head of Innovations. Over to you!
Thanks for linking.
Out of interest, how did the LibDem leadership election work? I remember hearing that membership data was not released, but was compiled, possibly partly from local party lists and the like.
And did LibDems feel that there was an issue with the leadership candidates having to compile their own contact data? It seems rather restrictive to challengers, to my thinking.
In the 2006 leadership election the lists had to be compiled; in the 2007 they got given the lists, I think. I can’t help thinking that getting a whole load of volunteers to pick email addresses out of Who’s Who etc is a collosal waste of time – just how does it benefit the voter?
Personally, I find most of the rules designed to keep the playing field level actually just benefit the incumbent or those already in the job.
If you were doing a SWOT analysis of getting elected in an internal party election/selection the major threat/weakness would be high barriers to entry.
People in Who’s Who have made their email addresses public. Members who let the party contact them may not be too pleased to find a desperate leadership campaign bombarding them with emails.
Graeme makes a valid point, although where membership lists are made available in PPC or MEPC selections, the number of e-mails that can be issued is strictly limited to try to prevent communication overload.
And, for the record, candidates for the Party Presidency, elected by the whole membership, still don’t get a membership list…
That’s a fair question Graeme. Did the LibDems have any problems with members complaining about being contacted during their leadership election?
I agree completely with Martin(‘s first point) and with Jo and submitted a paper to the candidates office suggesting that all the rules regulating internal elections should be scrapped and that we should instead be governed by the same rules as public elections. Candidates should be given a list of the selectorate’s names and addresses and allowed to do what they like with them up to a set spending limit. They should not be given email addresses but should have to go out to find them (to avoid the party suffering as a result of spam wars between candidates).
Sadly this wont address the massive advantage that incumbents have in being able to mail members however many times they like before the elections start but then that is true in the real world too and a more balanced process ought to ensure incumbents work harder to keep the selectorate happy.
Our current internal selection rules are one good intention piled upon another that together have created a monster which does the opposite of what it is supposed to do (and ties up countless activists in administering bureaucracy and appeals etc).
Jim: our rules vary a bit between different sorts of elections, so a full answer to your question would probably take a full essay! But generally I’d say:
a. Members like being contacted by candidates
b. Some candidates will show poor judgement in how they go about contacting members, so a degree of control over particular means of communication is often helpful (e.g. in some of our rules we let candidates send out emails via the party’s facilities and restrict the total number of messages rather than hand over email lists direct to candidates).
c. The rules work best where members have them explained to them in advance (e.g. for national contests we often have a message from the Returning Officer first telling members they are about to be contacted by campaigns, and explaining the rules which control them).
d. Whatever you do in life, some people will complain and think that what you’ve done is immoral, illegal and idiotic.
d. Whatever you do in life, some people will complain and think that what you’ve done is immoral, illegal and idiotic.
ha ha! Ain’t that the truth.
I realise I’m pointing out the obvious but the current rules are crazy nonsense.
Andrew,
Well, as one of the six people tasked with rewriting them on behalf of English Candidates Committee, I wouldn’t disagree with you.
We’ll be going into the wider consultation phase in the Autumn, with meetings taking place at Regional Conferences, so make sure that you have your say. That goes for the rest of you too…
“as one of the six people tasked with rewriting them on behalf of English Candidates Committee”
Wow.
CCF,
Yup, I’m willing to enter into a public debate on the subject, willing to act transparently and to encourage people to feed their ideas into our deliberations.
You, on the other hand, are hiding behind a pseudonym. Nice irony… are you a troll (I’m told that this is the term for a provocative opponent with nothing positive to add by way of a response)?