There are two advisory ballots on each resolution.

One is a postal ballot. The advantage of that is that, because most members are unable to attend the meeting in person, it represents a wider spectrum of the members than a show of hands at the meeting can. Its disadvantage is that members vote without hearing the argument.

The other is a show of hands. The advantage of that is that members can hear arguments from both sides before they vote. Its disadvantage is that it represents only a small proportion of members.

The votes are not aggregated and it is Council’s duty to consider the results of both ballots before deciding whether, or how, to implement a resolution.

Three of the resolutions (Nos. 1, 2 & 6 and all passed) called in different ways for STV to be used in local government elections in England and Wales so that is a very strong message to Council.

Two (Nos. 3 & 4) called for direct democracy. Their decisive rejection confirms the ERS’s traditional support for representative democracy.

There were nine resolutions in total this year:

1. “Support Local Campaigns for introducing STV for Local Government Elections”

The resolution implies that the campaign would be for the introduction of a local option to enable local communities to choose STV for their elections, especially in parts of London where majority voted “Yes” in the AV referendum.

Unfortunately, the proposer and seconder were not at the meeting, but I moved it from the floor and someone else seconded it.

Members PASSED it overwhelmingly in both ballots. The postal votes were 574 for and 24 against. Voting at the meeting was so overwhelming for the resolution, that there was no count.

2. “STV for local elections”

This resolution built on resolutions passed in 2008 and 2010 and called on Council to campaign for STV in all local elections.

Members PASSED it overwhelmingly in both ballots. The postal votes were 581 for and 25 against. Voting at the meeting was so overwhelming for the resolution (with only one against), that there was no count.

3. “Establishing an Internet Based System for Direct Democracy”

So far as I remember, the proposer and seconder were not present, but someone else moved the resolution so that there could be a vote.

Members REJECTED it decisively in both ballots. The postal votes were 185 for and 366 against. Voting at the meeting was so overwhelming against the resolution, that there was no count.

4. “Direct Democracy”

This resolution was similar to the preceding one except that the wording implied a series of direct referendums instead of Internet voting.

Members also REJECTED this one in both ballots. The postal votes were 245 for and 306 against. Voting at the meeting was so overwhelming against the resolution (with only seven in favour), that there was no count.

5. “Comparison of Methods of Counting STV elections”

This resolution deplored the fact that Council had not implemented resolutions of 2009 and 2010 on this subject but the proposer, David Hill, recognized the priorities of the “Vote for a Change” campaign followed by the AV referendum and spoke more in sorrow than anger to a sympathetic audience.

It was PASSED in both ballots, overwhelmingly in the case of the postal ballot. The postal votes were 434 for and 52 against. Voting at the meeting was 33 for and 23 against.

6. “Plan for Success”

I must declare an interest in this, because it was mine. It had too many points to summarize in a couple of lines, but it had two main themes. One was for the ERS to save money for a fighting fund and the other was explain the disadvantages of FPTP and the advantages of preferential voting in various ways, including a high profile campaign to allow local communities to choose STV for local elections.

This was PASSED in both ballots, overwhelmingly in the case of the postal ballot. The postal votes were 415 for and 99 against. Voting at the meeting was 30 for and 23 against.

7. “Annual March for Greater Democracy”

Members PASSED it in both ballots. The postal votes were 203 for and 160 against. Voting at the meeting was so overwhelming for the resolution, that there was no count.

8. “Mission Statement on Website”

This was to reword the Mission Statement slightly to bring it closer in line with the ERS’s main object, but the split result may give Council some difficulty.

Postal voters PASSED it decisively by 342 to 151 while those at the meeting narrowly REJECTED it by 34 to 30.

9. “Supplementary Vote”

This called for a campaign for single vacancy elections, such as for Mayors and Police Chiefs, to be by the Alternative Vote (AV) and not the Supplementary Vote (SV).

Members PASSED this overwhelmingly in both ballots. . The postal votes were 397 for and 77 against. Voting at the meeting was nem con in favour.

In addition to the usual formal business of minutes and accounts, there were four special resolutions and one ordinary resolution, all proposed by members, on the agenda.

As the four special resolutions were all to change the ERS’s constitution, they had to achieve 75% of the votes to be passed. This is the minimum requirement of company law. The ERS Council recommended members to reject all four of these resolutions and they all failed to achieve the 75% they needed to be passed. In detail, the results (including proxies) were:

1 To remove STV from the objects For 237, Against 356. Failed
2 To elect the President by popular vote For 310, Against 264 Failed (< 75%)
3 To allow Council to omit resolutions from AGM agenda For 292, Against 268 Failed (< 75%)
4 To elect Council annually and restrict periods of office For 241, Against 313 Failed

There was also an ordinary resolution asking Council to amend standing orders to allow emergency resolutions at AGMs. Council, wrongly in my personal view, made no recommendation on this and members passed it by 407 to 108 votes.

However, it is very difficult to see how Council could implement it. Not only would it disenfranchise from AGMs those members unable to attend in person, but it would also conflict with company law.

The ERS is a limited company and its AGM is a formal meeting held in accordance with company law.

Immediately after the AGM, the ERS holds an informal “annual meeting” mainly to discuss policy.

Both meetings went well in a good atmosphere. Debates were spirited but not bad spirited and most of the discussion was about the issues, not the personalities. The President, Bishop Colin Buchanan, handled the debates firmly but fairly and with good humour; he made a major contribution towards the good atmosphere.

I am posting brief accounts of each meeting separately.

I have written three blogs on http://www.reformgroups.net/?q=node/144 to explain my position, partly in response to those who seemingly wish to group candidates together and throw all existing members off Council, but mainly to set out my ideas for the future. This summarizes them.

1) Success and Mistakes

The ERS must continue to build on the success of helping to persuade over 6 million people to vote for a preferential voting system and has taken the first step by offering free membership for a year.

It must learn from the mistake of not having enough money by creating a substantial fighting fund.

2) Stability & evolution – not factionalism

The ERS needs the experience of some existing Council members and the fresh ideas of new ones, but must avoid descending into factionalism.

3) Focusing the ERS’s interests to be effective

The ERS’s resources are not unlimited and every penny we spend on peripheral activities means one penny less for our core ones. Not only that but, although we are united in our desire for STV, we cannot expect all members to support other campaigns so they can be divisive.

As individuals or as members of other organizations such as Unlock Democracy, we may well support other campaigns but not through the ERS.

The ERS must create a substantial fighting fund for its next major campaign and, in the meantime, should lead a campaign for STV in English and Welsh local government.

Do please look at http://www.reformgroups.net/?q=node/144 for more details.

Special Resolution 4 for the ERS’s AGM this year, in essence, calls for Council members to be elected every year and for their length of office to be restricted. Although these proposals may seem democratic to those who do not know the background, they are undesirable.

Those who want to change the ERS may mean well, but I do wish they had at least asked why things were as they were instead of charging in with their proposals.

The Society used to elect its Council annually, but the Society’s members, not the Council, decided democratically in 2004 (supported by more than 75% of those who voted) to change to biennial elections.

Between about 1998 and 2004, the Society was severely split by factionalism. Eventually the Council appointed a Special Commission to investigate the divisions in the Society and make recommendations to re-unite it.

One of the recommendations was to hold elections less often than once a year. Although Council accepted most of the recommendations, it was divided (although not on factional lines) on this one and decided that, as a body, it would take no action.

However, two Council members, from formerly opposing factions, proposed biennial elections to the 2004 AGM and the members supported the change overwhelmingly. The two Council members were the late Nina Fishman and I, who had often bitterly disagreed in the past but were united on this and I remain convinced that our action helped considerably to restore unity to the Society.

The proposer of the resolution has alleged that the change from annual to biennial elections was partly due to cost. THIS IS TOTALLY UNTRUE. I know because I was one of the movers of the resolution in 2004.

The key arguments were, and remain:

• Council meets only 3 or 4 times a year so newly elected members barely had time to understand their role, get to know their colleagues and become familiar with procedures before they faced re-election and possible dismissal.
• Annual elections, in which Council colleagues became rival candidates, encouraged disagreement and factionalism instead of agreement and collegiality.

The Society considered limiting terms of office in 1996 but rejected the idea. It discovered that, between 1984 and 1996, an average of 4.8 Council members (nearly a third) were replaced in each election. I do not have figures for later years but I guess they would be similar; this year, there will be at least 6 new Council members because that many of the existing Council members are retiring voluntarily. This provides the Society with a mixture of experience and new blood; stability and evolution.

I urge ERS members to vote AGAINST Special Resolution 4 (Election and Retirement of Members of Council).

STV is the only voting system that offers real voter choice and proportional representation of voters’ views (not just of parties).

The following candidates in the ERS Council election have all expressed unequivocal support for STV in their election statements. They may differ in their enthusiasm and you may also want to consider other matters, so you should read their statements yourself before deciding in what order to vote for them. The order below is the order in which their names appeared when I word-searched for “STV” on the ERS website:

Peter Jackson
Anthony Tuffin
Annabelle Harle
Peter Morley
Philip Cole
Keith Underhill
Simon Gazeley
Michael Meadowcroft
Keith Sharp
Crispin Allard
Keith Best
Andrew Burns
John Cartwright
Jim Woodward-Nutt
Eric Syddique

In addition, the following express qualified support for STV:

Peter Hirst: “I firmly believe in proportional electoral systems providing enhanced voter choice.” “…a successful campaign to achieve a proportional system SUCH AS STV.”

Benjamin Lille: “I believe that STV is A suitable system for electing Members of Parliament”

Arnie Craven: He wants to “Broaden the scope of the ERS. We should seek to campaign for STV whenever we can, BUT democratic reform encompasses more than just electoral systems.”

The following mention that they have run STV elections, but don’t state that they support STV, although you could ask them:

Paul Pettinger
Grayden Webb

According to the word search, the other 33 candidates have not mentioned STV.

A few notes on current ERS issues from someone who was both a very frustrated county organizer (covering eight constituencies) during the AV referendum campaign and an ERS Council member and Officer:

• The ERS Council, like Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, provided money for the campaign and, also like the Trust, did not run the campaign.

• Yes in May 2011 Ltd was the only organization registered with the Electoral Commission to run the campaign and was entirely responsible for running it.

• Now some of the Yes in May employees think they are qualified to run the ERS.

• The ERS Council and Officers, including me, constantly asked Yes in May to improve the campaign.

• Local activists, including me, also constantly asked Yes in May to improve the campaign.

• In particular, I kept asking Yes in May to release to local organizers the database that I knew it had from the previous Vote for a Change campaign, but it refused to do so. Most local organizers did not even know the database existed but, if they had had it, they would have had a ready-made core of contacts.

• Between about 1998 and 2004, the ERS and its Council were bitterly divided between factions. They voted for candidates in internal elections mainly according to which faction they represented. They often voted on policy and governance issues by factions.

• The factions were dissolved by mutual agreement in 2004 and votes on candidates and issues were decided on their merits. Indeed, there have been few votes in Council since then. Members of the former factions and newer Council members have all worked harmoniously together in the interest of the ERS. They come from all three main political parties and from none.

• This harmony may well be destroyed by the so-called “reform group” contesting the current election as an organized faction.

• Some candidates say they want the ERS to spend its money more wisely AND they want it to extend its campaigning to more issues! Before you vote for them if you are an ERS member, I advise you to ask them whether they want the money spent more wisely OR on more campaigns.

• One of the problems with the AV campaign was a shortage of money. If anything, perhaps the ERS should have saved money for the referendum by campaigning less in the past on peripheral issues.

ANTHONY TUFFIN

Hon. Treasurer, Electoral Reform Society since 2008
Chairman, Make Votes Count in West Sussex since 1999
Candidate for ERS Council 2011.

The proposer of the resolution at this year's Electoral Reform Society AGM to delete STV from the ERS’s object is half right. We can’t always campaign for STV, but that is no reason to abandon it as the ultimate aim.

The proposer asked in his supporting statement, “Is STV so important that we ruin our chances of getting any form of proportional representation?” This presupposes that keeping STV as the ERS’s main object would ruin our chances of getting any PR. That is wrong. It is nonsense. It didn’t prevent us from getting AMS for devolved government in Scotland and Wales. It didn’t prevent the ERS from campaigning for AMS then or for AV in the recent referendum.

A trade union may settle for a £50 rise when it has to (as we settled for AMS in Scotland and Wales) but that won’t stop it from asking for £100 in the first place and trying hard to get that before settling for less.

Going back to the question, “Is STV so important that we ruin our chances of getting any form of proportional representation?”, the answer really depends on what you want. It may not be so important for those who merely want party proportionality, but it is very important indeed for those of us who want:

• People proportionality;
• Maximum voter choice;
• Proportionality on cross-party issues;
• Fair representation of factions within parties;
• Only one type of MP with equal status;
• Strengthened links between MPs and constituents;
• Ability to vote against an individual candidate (e.g. because of incompetence or abuse of expenses) without voting against the party.

Only STV in multi-member constituencies offers all these advantages.

The Electoral Reform Society has frequently reviewed systems and concluded that STV is by far the best.

Far from helping the ERS to remain relevant, abandoning its principles and core aim would considerably reduce its relevance.

ERS members should vote AGAINST Special Resolution 1.