This year conference was the most attended, compared to previous years. I myself attended conference for a day or two. As a student I did find it somewhat grudging to pay nearly £500 for three days to attend. I did however not find it massively damaging to my wallet, this is not the case for many members of the party.
Due to the fact I could afford to go (and as a voting rep) it meant that I as an individual had more of a voice than those who couldn’t travel to Bournemouth. One member one vote passed which is great! But it still means that only those who can afford to take time off work, and the cost, will be able to make use of this. As a democratic party surely conference should be accessible. Why should members not be allowed to use their vote because they can’t afford sky high travel prices or a hotel in a tourist town or even to take time off work?
Is it not about time that we as a party move towards an electronic ballot for motions? Before you start to say “Oh no, what about corruption!” let me first say that corruption is unlikely, as such a system would require members to fill in their membership number. Just like they did when getting a conference pass. Such a system would cost a lot to start off with, but surely alienating members on a financial basis is worse than spending money to ensure every member gets a vote! We keep saying policy is made by members. So why should those who can afford to go (to conference) decide party policy? Surely every member should!
It’s not really one member one vote when only those who can afford to go can use their vote.
* Gareth-Stuart Ogg is Vice President (Comms) of Liberal Youth Scotland and a member in Dundee.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Two frogs fell into a pail of cream - You won't believe what happened next
Our weekly ward surgery tonight #dundeewestend
Graphics and AV tools for solo consultants
Imaduddin Ahmed
Nigel Jones
Joseph Bourke
12 Comments
With the constitutional change to OMOV (which I was sceptical of for this and other reasons), the need to address this problem is now more urgent.
I’ve been a passionate advocate of one member one vote. The article correctly raises the issue of members being unable to vote on policy motions because aren’t at conference for whatever reason.
Remote voting is now on the agenda, and I look forward to understanding about the technology, the cost and the safeguards. But none of these issues should be an excuse for not going ahead with as wide a membership franchise as possible – it’s just about getting it right. Keep up the pressure!
We need a coordinated Campaign for Liberal Democracy!
We can find a form of words and a transition plan to enable all members to be enfranchised to Vote on policy whether in person or rometly. Making us virtual and literal liberal democrats.
In 2010 while many Liberal Democrats were deciding on the Coalition. Thirsk and Malton Liberal Democrats were too busy to go to the Special Conference. As the one constituency with a delayed General Election campaign, while it would have been nice to have been able to participate in the Vote, campaign locally to try to get a Liberal Democrat remains an over riding objective.
Getting more people involved and enabled to feel ownership of our party’s policy and decision making, I envisage will empowering the party. To my mind it is imperative that Liberal Democrats continue to lead on political innovation.
Verifiable, online, anonymous: pick two. You are not the first person to have thought of this, Gareth. And it’d be amazing if we could get it to work, but there are hurdles, and pretending there aren’t does none of us any favours. Dave Page, chair of Plus, goes into more detail here: https://jazzhandsseriousbusiness.wordpress.com/2014/10/11/some-thoughts-on-online-voting-and-voter-engagement/
That said, there was an interesting idea in one of the FPC “where do we go from here” discussions – that perhaps we could have certified venues – say a local cinema, or perhaps even something smaller – across the country, and people who are in the room at those places could vote remotely. This would mean that you’d still have to have a pass, which would be checked (and believe it or not, this means more than just putting in your membership number from the end doing the checking), and you’d be able to vote but not speak, but would make it more accessible for those with less money.
Whilst my heart supports remote voting my head is opposed.
On many debates I have not made up my mind until I have heard the debate. It is often a heart v head situation, Trident was one example.
Any remote voting must ensure that the member has listened to the debate. I do not want to be a member of a party where hundreds of members can influence a decision without hearing the arguments. With remote voting without the debate there is no point in having a conference, we can all just sit at home and vote.
The Labour party tried a bodge up to make their party more democratic, look where it got them.
I was registered and had accommodation booked for Bournemouth but was unable to attend because of ongoing medical treatment. I would have loved to have been able to vote remotely.
@David Becket – if remote voting must ensure that the voter has listened to the debate, then fairness demands that anyone voting at Conference should have as well. Would you be fine with no one being allowed into the conference hall after a debate has started?
The issue is surely more about when ‘the debate’ takes place. Wouldn’t it be better if Conference was the end of a long discussion, both online and off, rather than the sole forum for debate. I saw that part of the Green Party’s process for discussing motions for debate is is having a member’s area on their site where draft motions are posted in advance of their conference, and anyone can comment on them and propose amendments then, allowing there to be some discussion beforehand. Another option would be to reverse our current order of things and have regional/national conferences before federal conference, so issues can be discussed at those and then fed into the wider debate.
By focusing on the idea that the debate and vote at conference is all-important, I think we’re missing a whole lot of different ways to open up policy debate and discussion.
There was a consultation session at conference. It was suggested that asylum work be transferred to F&CO, which would cause disruption and not achieve much. Providing information about countries of origin has been done for a couple of decades by the Country Information and Policy Unit.
Gareth
I agree with your article in many ways. Conference is not accessible to every member and to have a few hundred voting for thousands of members is not acceptable. OMOV is an important step forward and while I accept that it is more difficult to vote if you have not heard the debate I do believe that all members should have the opportunity to express a preference that advises any debate at conference, this should be easy to do using something like Survey Monkey.
I would be happy with some form of system that could take any advisory vote into account, not easy I accpet that but something that we have to look at.
Great article / subject. Fabulous to read the mix views. The risks include how to prevent cheating. Well many people cheat and that includes LibDems. I’m persuaded to have satellite points for conference so those who cannot travel to the specific venue can still participate / link in via a designated location – to ensure we capture their say!
As for cheating – well its down to us to not vote for cheaters and when candidates or members see this in their result, they’ll stop doing it – I hope!
The concern with online voting is not corruption, but security. One person circumventing security to attend conference is unlikely to change the outcome of any votes. And, they have at least to be in the UK to do it.
One person circumventing the security of an online voting system can change every single vote cast. This isn’t fantasy, it’s actually been done in the testing of an expensive system commissioned by Washington DC. During trials, every vote was altered, and the system administrators didn’t notice a thing, even though they were watching for it. For bonus points, the hackers obtained video of the system administrators at work!
The problem is that the entire voting system has to be secure. When the system includes every computer that the voters are using, and every router on the Internet, that’s an impossible requirement to meet.
Does it matter? Will people bother? Well, perhaps not while we have 8 MPs, but if we were in coalition, can you imagine the consequences of someone rigging a vote on Trident? Can you imagine any foreign power that might have an interest in rigging that vote? Can you imagine any third parties having an interest in embarrassing us by revealing that such a vote had been rigged?