Cynosura

Elections

Introduction

Elections lie at the heart of good governance.  They are about ensuring the democratic process takes place whatever the size of the organisation.  They allow voices to be heard and opinions to be expressed.  They bring new talent forward and they allow for the constant refreshing of people and ideas to happen. 

Without elections an organisation is likely to become dominated by a few people, which in turn leads to a stagnation of ideas and the decline of the organisation. 

Without free and fair elections, resentment, conflict and turmoil follows; that in turn leads to membership falling off and the decline of the organisation.

As important as elections themselves, people need something to be elected to.  With a small organisation the burden of lots of elections to a multiplicity of committees serves little purpose; but where membership runs into thousands then people might feel disenfranchised if the organisation is run by a small number of people on just a few committees.  One way to build talent, encourage succession planning and maintain a constant stream of new ideas is through a varied collection of committees to which people are elected. 

This paper looks at the elections process and discusses options.  It offers a best practice from which your organisation can review or develop a system that works well for you.  The type of election and the exact process will depend upon the level of formality of your organisation, the degree of good governance you practice and the shape, number and size of the committees you elect.

A fair system

A fair system which allows everyone to participate should be the starting point for any election practice. 

Giving every member the chance and opportunity to stand for election encourages participation and builds an organisation which is close to its members. 

Making it easy to obtain information about candidates is important if you want to make sure that voters vote wisely.  

Having a system of voting which is easy to access and is transparent will encourage a greater proportion of members to vote. 

Having rules in place prevents the misuse of elections for the purposes of a minority group.  Rules help to maintain a ‘level playing field’ and prevent a few people dominating the process.

Regular elections allow for change and the constant revitalising of the decision making process.

Encouraging good turnout

Low turnout:  Low turnout often happens when people become disillusioned.  They don’t see any advantages in voting, the ‘same old faces’ get elected, ‘nothing changes’, ‘nobody listens’ are just some of the reasons given for not voting.

The simplest and most effective way of encouraging a good turnout is through engagement with the people.  That means good communications and it means that those who are elected should listen to those that voted for them. 

High turnout through continuous communications:  Good communications should not be entered into just before an election; they should be part of the process that happens continually, year in, year out, between elections.  This constant dialogue not only means that the eventual voters will feel there is a purpose to their vote, but it also means that the organisation has a greater chance of meeting its objectives.

Succession planning:  With good communications comes a need for succession planning.  In business this is becoming an increasingly important process.  It helps to ensure that the leadership of the business is the very best that can be retained.  It means that there is always a pool of talent to take over when someone drops out for whatever reason.  If it’s good for business then it should be good for any organisation that needs a strong leadership.  Succession planning encourages the organisation to engage with its members as it seeks the next generation of talented leaders.

Last but not least, the process of calling and conducting an election needs to be done with maximum transparency and greatest opportunity to participate.  If these are achieved then no member will have a valid excuse for not voting.

Period between elections

Elections should be held regularly:  Elections should not be ad hoc; they should be part of a planned process which occurs regularly and with terms of office that do not change.  Any ad hoc arrangement encourages those in positions of power to ‘hold on’ as long as possible.

The holding of elections should be built into the constitution of any organisation and it should state the clear aims for such elections.  Typically elections will be held annually, although the term of office for an elected person may be longer.

Guaranteeing turnover:  The most favourable mechanism to achieve continuity of action whilst ensuring a steady flow of new ideas and opinions is obtained in two ways:

• By having an arrangement where only part of a committee is due for election at any one time.  Such an arrangement might lead to half or one third of the committee coming up for election in any one year
• The second method is to limit the number of terms someone can undertake.  Let’s assume that a person is serving for a three year term; the rules may forbid more than a two-term tenure, giving each person a maximum of six years service to the organisation.  That creates an opportunity for them to contribute yet still allows a steady flow of new talent.

Nature of committees

Size & shape of the committee:  An ongoing problem that faces organisations is the nature of their committees.  How big should they be, what should be their terms of reference, how many committees should there be, should they be ad hoc or permanent and so on.  These are matters that are discussed elsewhere.  However, the nature of the committees does have an impact upon elections.

Diversity:  Whilst elections are a good thing, they should help to build a representative group of people to reflect the diversity of the organisation.  In recent years too many committees have failed to represent the changing diversity of the organisation.  That may mean not enough women or ethnic representatives or it could mean a geographical imbalance as a result of the positioning of the headquarters or because of where meetings are held.  Whilst succession planning can help to address these issues in the long term, for many organisations getting the right balance in the short term can be a taxing problem.

Political parties have, in recent elections, sought women-only shortlists which have led to more women in parliament.  However, is this a false method, does it attract the best candidates and is it only a short term solution?  Other possible solutions include identifying and encouraging individuals to stand (a sort of short term succession planning), creating constituencies, whether these are based upon particular groups or are geographical or creating specialist committees which then have entitlement onto the main decision making bodies.  All these solutions have been tried to greater or lesser degrees of success.  Ultimately there is no short cut to talent spotting and succession planning.

Size & relevance of the committee:  Another issue that manifests itself is the size and relevance of the committee.  If it is too large and cumbersome then the elected members won’t feel that their voice is being heard and may well decide not to stand again.  If it is too small it may be difficult for the elected members to keep in touch with the larger membership.  Likewise, if it is simply a talking shop then it will attract only those who like to talk.  If it is one of a number of committees and has to fight to have its collective voice heard, will that encourage new members to stand.  All of these issues should be addressed – regularly – to ensure that the organisation is getting the best from its committees and that the best people are being elected. 

Elections and the Internet

The internet has brought many benefits to the way we work.  One of these is that it is now much easier to communicate.  For example, all the documentation for elections can now be posted on the website of your organisation.  This means that there is easy access to timetable, nomination forms, rules for elections, constitution and so on.

Today, many organisations hold email records for most members and have a way of making quick and easy contact with them.  Despite all this easy access, the principle that should be applied for all elections is that any organisation should broadcast their election process in as many ways as possible.  Some members may not have email, some may not have easy access to the internet, especially if membership is open to overseas professionals.

Not everyone uses the internet:  With this in mind, although an organisation may have come to rely on the internet as a fast and easy means of communication, it should not be the only method of communications.  At least once a year, probably at the time when membership is due for renewal, your organisation should ensure that it has all the possible ways of communicating with each member.  That may include a form which they are asked to complete and which indicates their preferred choice of communication.

In addition to using the preferred form of communication, your organisation may well publish a newsletter or magazine; in which case notice of the election should be advertised through the media as well.  For the larger organisations it is probable that national newspaper advertising may be used to inform members of elections.

Policing online voting:  Some organisations have also started to experiment with online voting systems.  Whilst this is now technically possible, there is still the problem that not all members may be able to have the sort of internet access necessary.  Where this is the case, then it is important that multiple methods of voting are made available.  For example online voting may be complemented by a postal vote facility.  Where this happens then particular care should be taken to ensure that a member is not able to record a vote twice.  Similarly where it does happen there needs to be a clear policy about which vote, if any, is accepted.  The recommended route is to accept only the first vote cast which, in most cases, is likely to be the electronic vote.    

Notice of Election

Details about the notice of the election will normally be enshrined in the constitution of the organisation.  Some of the issues about the notice have been addressed above; however there are further issues which should be discussed.

Some organisations are quite prescriptive in their election procedures, even to the point where they indicate the month, or even the day of the month, each year when the election process should commence.  For example, the Royal Aeronautical Society Council lays down in its By-Law 9(A) Nominations, that nominations should be received by ‘the Chief Executive not later than 15^th January annually’.

Laying down strict timetable for elections:  Other organisations do not fix such a precise date, but might state that elections will be held by the end of or during a certain month.  Some simply state that new elections should be held no later than thirteen months after the last election.  This latter approach is to prevent a term of office being stretched out to benefit the incumbents.

Elections should be held regularly:  Elections should be held regularly and the calling of elections should not be decided on a whim but instead as part of a formal process.  That is also why the basic rules for elections are typically carried within the constitution of the organisation.

There are other basic principles which should be adhered to if the organisation is to be seen to run free and fair elections.

Regulate Notice of Election:  The notice of an election should not be made too early, to the point where it is then forgotten by potential participants.  Nor should a notice of election be made so close to the close of nominations that it might impede an interested candidate from finding the required proposer and seconders, completing the paperwork and submitting it.

With this in mind, the notice of an election is likely to be made around 30 days before close of nominations.  In a well organised body, there may well have been an advance notice sent out to remind people that an election is due soon; where the date is built into the constitution then that too helps people to expect an election notice at certain times of year.

Timetable

We strongly recommend the laying out of a timetable for the election process. 

Below is our suggested best practice:

• Notice of election to be as laid out in the constitution with possibly advance notice having been given one month before
• Close of nominations around 30 days after the formal notice of an election
• Publication of a list of the successfully nominated candidates around 14 days after the close of nominations
• Ballot papers to be sent out around 42 days after the announcement of the successfully nominated candidates (this allows a reasonable period for any campaigning)
• Close of ballot to be around 14 days after being sent out.  Some may argue that this is too long but we believe that giving maximum time for people to return ballot papers is important
• The count to proceed as soon as the time for receiving ballot papers has closed
• Announcement as soon as practicable after the count has been concluded
• Ballot papers to be retained for six months after the result of the election has been announced.  This is just in case any legal challenge is made.

Entitlement to stand

Most organisations have regulations which determine who may and who may not stand for election.  There may be special circumstances such as having to live or practice in the region to be on a regional committee, but most regulations specify broader reasons.

Qualification:  The most common reasons which count someone in as being qualified include:

• Being a fully paid up member of the organisation
• Actively working in the profession.  In some organisations this can be reversed in that someone may be disqualified if they are professionally qualified but not actively pursuing their profession
• Their membership fees are paid.  This may specify for the next twelve months where a fixed subscription date applies and where elections are after the subscription date.  Alternatively the rule may state that if a member’s subscription is unpaid whilst they are serving as an elected member that will disqualify them from continuing on the relevant committee.

Disqualification:  The more common reasons for disqualification might include:

• Not a member or no longer a member
• A paid official of the organisation.  For example the Chief Executive, Finance Director or similar people would normally be disqualified from standing
• Incapable by reasons of mental disorder.  This is often included in the rules as a disqualification.  It should state that the incapacity is medically proven.
• Bankrupt
• Removed through resolution.  This may come about because someone has broken the rules of the organisation or acted in a way which is unethical, in breach of the code of conduct or against the best interests of the organisation
• Upper Age limit.  Some organisations do place an age limit such as the retirement age of 65.  Others feel that this can be addressed by requiring the member to be practicing their profession
• Membership or office holder in another professional body.  Where there are two professional bodies competing for membership of the same profession then this rule can sometimes apply.  Being an elected member of more than one body could create areas of possible conflict of interest.  Many organisations will, at the very least, expect a member standing for election to declare their membership of any other organisations
• Exceeding number of terms of office.  In order to ensure that an organisation doesn’t become cliquey and to encourage fresh thinking and new views onto a committee it is normal to limit the number of times a person can serve on a committee.  Therefore limiting the number of terms to two or three is quite common.  A reasonable rule of thumb is that a person serving more than six years is about the limit.

It can be easy for an organisation to put in place draconian disqualifications which severely limit those able to stand.  Usually this is a bad approach and qualification rules should be applied with a light touch if the organisation is to get truly representative committees.

Avoid creating career politicians:  Organisations that have elections and rules that encourage ‘career politicians’ may soon find themselves running into difficulties.  Frustration builds up where new people wishing to stand for election are unable to build sufficient momentum to do so. 

When cliques do build up and this problem is openly discussed and perceived within an organisation, then good candidates are unlikely to stand, often considering it a waste of time.  That in turn leads to a perpetuation of the same people standing because ‘no-one else comes forward’.

The moment that voters’ choice is restricted or seen to be limited, turnouts drop, fewer candidates bother to come forward and the organisation starts to stagnate, hurting those in positions of office as well as the credibility of the organisation. 

Nominations

Nominations procedures often copy those used for wider democratic elections.  A good nominations process should put in place enough safeguards to protect the organisation.  It should encourage maximum communication between the candidate and the voters and yet it should not be so difficult as to prevent any legitimate candidate from standing.

Rules for Elections:  The first rule of nominations is that the candidate should be properly qualified and should not be covered under any of the disqualifications put in place by the organisation.  In most organisations a ‘Rules for Elections’ is devised which lays out such matters and which a candidate when being nominated should make clear that they have read and are not disqualified from standing.  Such rules should also make it clear that where a candidate has made a false entry their candidacy or elected position would be automatically forfeit.

Who nominates?  The second issue for nominations is – who nominates?  Does the candidate nominate himself, does he seek out a nominator or does he put his own name forward and then people are permitted to nominate him from that point?

If a potential candidate nominates themselves then there is little or no guarantee that they have any support within the organisation.  This in itself can lead to embarrassment when a candidate receives no votes and is rarely beneficial to the process (it is often greeted with great glee by the enemies of that candidate!).

If a potential candidate has to seek out a nominator (and seconders) then at least that process is undertaken in private and will minimise embarrassment.  This approach also encourages debate, where the potential proposer might seek to enquire why the person is wishing to stand.  Of course, in many cases it is a member who is approached by people who wish to propose him, in which case their active support is highly beneficial to the democratic process – they can be seen to be supporting a particular candidate.

In a small number of organisations the potential candidate indicates publicly that they wish to stand and then await supporters to come forward and nominate them.  Similar to the self nominating approach this too has its risks and can lead to embarrassment and loss of face.

Nomination without permission:  A common problem occurs where the name of someone is put forward without their knowledge.  The person nominated may have very good reasons for not wishing to stand and may not wish to discuss them publicly; if he withdraws his name this can lead to rumours either about the true reason behind the person’s withdrawal or about his attitude towards the organisation.  This is a further reason for supporting a nomination system where the candidate seeks out proposers and seconders in private before publicly declaring.  Whichever approach is adopted, part of the nomination process should include a section where the candidate has to indicate their willingness to stand.

Proposer:  A proposer is someone who is making the proposition.  Therefore a candidate can be self proposing as discussed above, or someone else can propose them.  In the latter case, the second person is, in effect, saying that they believe the person being nominated should be an elected member of the committee.

Seconder:  A seconder has a different role; their role is to support the proposition although they have not made it themselves.  In other words they are saying that they agree that the candidate should go forward for election although they may not be saying that the candidate should necessarily be elected.

Limit on number of proposers & seconders:  This explains why there is need for only one proposer but where more than one seconder adds weight to the original proposition.  The more support in the form of proposers and seconders a candidate has, the more it is likely that they have widespread support.  Many organisations set a minimum number on the proposers and seconders.  In this way they have caused the potential candidate to seek out support and their nomination will only stand if they can find enough support.

Where a limit is placed upon the number of Proposers and Seconders this can ensure sufficient support is achieved whilst also ensuring a ‘level playing field’.  Where there is no upper limit then one candidate might work hard to gain large numbers of seconders whilst another candidate does not; this does not necessarily mean the second candidate is any less interested or determined but other circumstances may have prohibited them.

Ultimately the number of seconders will vary depending upon the size of the organisation and the number of places up for election.  Our recommended starting point is one proposer and three seconders.  Unless the organisation is very small (in which case one seconder would suffice) this creates sufficient of a hurdle for a potential candidate to be seen as having serious support without being draconian.

How many nominations can you make?  Inevitably this leads to the question as to whether someone can nominate or second more than one candidate.  This may be decided by the size of the organisation; if it is small then the only practical approach may be to allow one person to propose or second more than one candidate.  In a larger organisation two approaches may apply, the first to allow one person to propose or second as many candidates as there are positions or keep a strict rule of allowing someone to propose or nominate only one candidate.

As with all matters relating to governance, common sense should prevail; for example if there are fifteen positions coming up for election then allowing someone to propose up to fifteen people sounds nonsensical.  This approach is more applicable where two or three positions may be coming up for election. 

Where there is only one position, such as President or Chairman then clearly a person should nominate only one candidate.  In a truly strong and democratic organisation there should be enough active members involved to ensure that one person need only propose or second another.  If this is not the case then your organisation may be suffering from problems with cliques or a lack of dialogue between the committees and the ordinary members.

Geographical or branch nominations:  Another issue with nominations that often arises is where there are constituencies or geographically based branches.  The problem really only arises where each constituency, region etc elects representatives onto the higher committee.  Where the higher committee does allocate representatives geographically then there seems little problem with allowing proposers and seconders to nominate candidates outside their own branch.  Where there is geographical representation then the proposer and seconder(s) should come from within the same branch.

Information about the candidate:  A further debate which has raged in recent times has centred on information about the candidate.  Where the organisation is member based and has a large membership spread nationwide or internationally then the chance of members knowing the candidate is diminished.  For that reason many organisations require a potential candidate to give certain information about themselves.  This information might cover the following areas:

• Name
• Date of birth
• Number of years as a member
• Education and qualifications
• Professional affiliations
• Brief description of career to date/ Present occupation and previous posts.

Candidate’s statement:  The other item often included is a short statement.  The organisation may give the candidate a free rein in which to write down what they wish or they may specify the subject area.  An example of a subject area would be in the form of a short manifesto – what the candidate would hope to achieve during their term of office.  Another subject area might cover the contribution the candidate has made to the profession or to the organisation to date.

In every case we have reviewed the length of the statement has be specified.  This ensures that long essays are not submitted and it creates an even playing field.  The length of such statement can be anything from 100 to 500 words.  Ideally the number of words should be enough to give the candidate room to lay out their thoughts but not long enough for them to waffle.  Our experience would suggest that 300 words is the ideal length.

Reasons for rejecting a statement:  There might be instances where the statement might be rejected; these include statements that use inappropriate language (obscene language or swear words), personal comments concerning other members or candidates and defamatory comments.  Where the inner organisation has a habit of using acronyms, abbreviations or jargon (i.e. IMO – in my opinion) then these should be actively discouraged to prevent confusion for those voters who are not familiar with the terminology.

Information about the proposer:  In some organisations they require a limited amount of information about the proposer and seconder.  These might cover:

• Name
• Present occupation
• Any positions held in the organisation
• Number of years as a member.

Deadline for receipt of Nominations:  The final and important issue about nominations is that there is a strict, enforceable deadline for receipt of nominations.  As discussed above, this should be about 30 days after the formal notice of election has been published.  However, in the timetable the precise date, time and place for delivery should be spelt out.

The date is straightforward although it should give the day of the week as well as the date.  The time used to be ‘no later than first post’ on a certain day, but first post does not have the precision it once had.  Today most organisations use a midday time slot or a close of business time slot; that might be ‘no later than 12 noon’ or ‘no later than close of business at 5 p.m.’.

With the use of the internet it might be desirable to have an online nominations system, although as explained above not everyone has the required access.  The accepted norm is that receipt should be at a certain date, time and place whether submitted electronically or in hard copy.  That requires the relevant official to check the e-nominations system or email at precisely the time allocated for last receipt of nominations.  There should be a second person present when the official downloads the nominations and a record made of all nominations received and the time the record was made. 

People do leave it until the last possible moment and it does require a strict regime to be established.  Where the nominations might be handed in at a front desk, the person on reception should be alerted and a receipt form prepared at which the precise date and time can be written down and given to the person handing in the nomination.  The same date and time should be written on the envelope received and initialled by the receptionist.  This simple technique prevents any arguments at a later date.    

Publication of Nominated persons

Formal announcement of those successfully nominated:  As soon as possible after the close of nominations a formal announcement of those successfully nominated should be made.  Such an announcement should only occur once all nominations have been fully scrutinised and conform to the required nomination format.  Any that are rejected should be double checked and the potential candidate, proposer(s) and seconder(s) informed of the reason for their rejection.  Likewise, successful candidates should be informed that their nomination paper has been accepted.  This is a formal process and the letter or email should reflect the formality of the occasion.

Once this private process is completed then a formal announcement can be made.  With all such formal announcements throughout the election process, the names of the candidates should be declared in alphabetical order by surname (family name).

Objections to candidacy

It is rare for an organisation to have a formal procedure for objections to the inclusion of a candidate.  It happens in governmental democratic elections and the reasons that have to be given are based upon the legal requirements of the nomination process. 

Handling objections:  Within a membership based organisation having a period where members can object could lead to controversy and infighting.  For this reason we do not recommend this approach, instead leaving it to officials to scrutinise the nomination papers.  If, once the names of candidates are published, someone were to come forward with serious objections, then the matter should be treated as a dispute.  The official responsible should contact the candidate and discuss with them the allegations that have been made.  At this point the candidate may decide to withdraw or the official might consider the complaint has sufficient validity for the matter to be brought to the notice of the governing body or any ethics committee for them to give a ruling under the auspices of the constitution.

If an objections process is put in place, then a reasonable amount of time should be given for objections to be made.  Objections should only be accepted on the basis of the official nominations process.  Objections received that are of a personal nature or a reflection on the professional conduct of the candidate should be handled through the Code of Conduct process and not through the election process.

It takes time to print ballot papers and therefore at least 42 days should be given for campaigning/hustings as well as the formal process of preparing for the ballot. 

Withdrawal of candidacy

It is common for candidates to have second thoughts after the close of nominations.  Their personal situation may have changed, they may decide that a more deserving person has come forward or they may be persuaded by others to withdraw.

Whatever the reason, it is common for a period to be set aside, prior to the printing of ballot papers for a candidate to withdraw.  This might be as little as seven days after close of nominations or could as much as fourteen days.

Hustings

The importance of hustings:  Hustings are an important part of the democratic process.  Without hustings an election could be decided on the basis of who is best known, favouring well known national figures or those who are already incumbents.  A lack of hustings also means that the election is decided upon personalities rather than policies; again this favours those who are well known and can deter new faces.

A good hustings process will encourage debate, draw forward new ideas and refresh the organisation.  Some organisations suffer from the ‘talking shop’ problem of their elected committees; with a successful hustings and a vigorous election, new ideas will be brought in along with people who wish to see them enacted.

Hustings do need to be carefully controlled.  A hustings which is allowed to become a ‘free for all’ will sink into accusations and counter-accusations, personal abuse and negative campaigning. 

Different organisations require varying degrees of hustings to take place.  Below we suggest a process which starts with the simplest of hustings through to a full blown process.

Candidate’s statement:  At its simplest, the hustings may be no more than a publication of the statement submitted at the time of nominations.  This approach works best in small organisations where there is a greater chance that the candidates will be known by most of the voters.

The next stage, which is controlled by the official acting as returning officer, is to allow each candidate the opportunity to include a leaflet within the ballot paper mailing.  If this approach is taken then great care should be used to ensure that a level playing field is achieved; without this, candidates with lots of money could produce a glitzy leaflet whilst other leaflets are more basic.  The simplest approach is to state the size of the leaflet and possibly guidelines on its contents, for example:

Election leaflet:  The leaflet:

• Should not be larger than A4 in size when opened out and can consist of only one sheet of paper
• Paper weight should not exceed 100 gsm
• Can be folded in any way you wish i.e. to DL, A5 or A6
• Can be four colour (full colour) printed on both sides
• Should contain a photograph of the candidate
• Should contain a short biography of the candidate
• Will have a statement of intent for the candidate on their activities if elected
• May contain other statements provided they are not of a defamatory, personal or negative nature.

Negative statements:  Most problems occur around the description of negative.  An example would be as follows:

“The suggestion that we should support the Government’s white paper on accounting principles is naïve, stupid and lacks professional competence.”

Positive statements: Instead a positive approach might be:

“I will support any moves to lobby the Government to make substantial changes to their white paper on accounting principles; especially in the areas of . . .”

By this point a candidate will have had an opportunity to lay out their policies but the leaflet will arrive at the same time as the ballot paper.  That allows the voter to read all the different statements and make up their minds but it will not have created a debate.

Meetings:  The next stage is to encourage a series of hustings meetings.  Some organisations may be in a position to do this online, however the preferred approach is still to arrange face to face meetings.  There are a number of different ways in which these could be achieved.

Ideally any such meetings will be organised within the auspices of the organisation, perhaps by a regional committee or a local branch.  Alternatively the national organisation might organise a series of meetings.

Joint meetings and hustings:  If there are a small number of candidates, such as a Presidency or Chairmanship campaign, then joint hustings could be arranged.  Where this happens the chairing of the meeting should be very carefully controlled to ensure that fairness is maintained throughout.  One feature of such meetings can be that one person asks a pointed question which is designed to embarrass one candidate.  That is why questions submitted beforehand are usually more appropriate.  Any question should be asked of all candidates.  (More on this subject is covered elsewhere).

If there are a large number of candidates then a formal meeting is less manageable.  Instead, the organisation might put aside a day for members to meet those candidates who wish to attend.  The venue might be in a hotel covering one region with each candidate being given a small area within a meeting room.

Receptions:  Another approach is to organise a series of receptions which candidates attend and members can come along and talk to them informally.  These could be organised for an evening to minimise disruption to the working day.

There are always those that argue that such a process is expensive both to the organisation and to the candidates.  Whilst that is true, a balance should be struck between cost and the democratic process.  An organisation which is not prepared to enter into a dialogue with its members, especially at election time, shows few signs that it is truly interested in democracy or good governance.

Questions to candidates:  Face to face engagements are by far the most effective.  Nevertheless there are other ways in which voters might seek the views of the candidates.  The first is to allow members to send in questions to the returning officer.  He, in turn, circulates these to the candidates and asks for short answers, probably of no more than 100 words.  These responses can then be sent out within the ballot pack or posted onto the website.

Online chat rooms:  Another approach is to establish a ‘chat room’ where members can ask questions of candidates.  This approach should be carefully policed by a ‘postmaster’ because experience shows that chat rooms can have a habit of degrading into juvenile commentary.  If this option is chosen then the ‘postmaster’ should check the question for validity before posting, replies from candidates should also be checked before posting and replies giving commentary from members should not be permitted.  If a secondary question is needed then that should be appended to the original question.

With the advent of modern technology it is now possible to provide online statements in video format from candidates or alternatively to provide similar video coverage on a DVD.  Potentially this might be covered by the national organisation in a carefully monitored environment where filming is undertaken with the same backdrop and where the time allocated is strictly maintained for each candidate.  Candidates would be presented in alphabetical order.

Canvassing:  The ultimate form of campaigning is to allow canvassing of voters.  Many organisations discourage this because it can have a negative effect upon the image and credibility of the organisation.  If it is allowed, then it would mean allowing all candidates equal access to the membership list.  Naturally there is a data protection issue here which would have to be addressed by the national organisation.

If canvassing is considered, then we would strongly recommend that a clear set of rules is established which states what a candidate is permitted to do.  This might include limiting one call only to each voter per candidate (unless the voter has asked for a reply on a question), the right for a voter to refuse to speak to a candidate, the permitting of asking for a voters vote but not asking how a voter will vote.  If the number of potential voters is large then a candidate may want to use a campaign team to canvass everyone.  For security reasons it makes good sense to ask candidates to give the names of their campaign team.  The returning officer can then notify voters, probably via the website.

Starting with a simple statement appended to the ballot paper and then moving to a full blown campaign with canvassing and meetings the opportunities for creating an exciting and dynamic election campaign which captures the imagination of everyone are great.

Ballot papers and the Poll

Safe conduct of the ballot:  The issuing and collection of ballot papers should be very carefully monitored.  Questions over the validity of an election usually arise over the number of ballot papers issued and the number returned.  Across the world in democratic elections this can be the one area where greatest problems arise.  Below is a description of the way in which a ballot can be safely conducted.

• Ballot papers should be securely printed and be sufficiently unique to make them difficult to reproduce.  This might include the use of the organisational logo as well as a watermark and a numbering system.  The numbering system should be sequential and of a sufficiently large number that it is easy to check for fraud
• The mailing of ballot papers should be undertaken in a secure place and using only known and trusted people
• The number of the ballot paper should be marked off against the issue to each voter.  Although some worry that this means the vote of an individual can be identified, in practice once the ballot papers have been issued the ballot ‘books’ are then placed in a sealed envelope and should only be opened in the event of a challenge
• With each ballot paper there should be a declaration of identity form, a ballot paper envelope and a reply paid envelope
• The voter should then mark the ballot paper as indicated and place it into the ballot envelope and seal the envelope.  Then they should complete the declaration of identity form and include that plus the ballot paper envelope (with the ballot paper sealed inside) into the reply paid envelope which should then be posted back to the address indicated.

This description is the basic requirement; there are a number of additional security levels which can be applied which we do not expand upon in this paper.

Clear instructions on ballot paper:  Clear instructions on how to complete the ballot should be printed on the ballot paper.  Where there is a multiple vote then the ballot paper should indicate how many votes may be cast.  Where a unique system such as the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system is used, then it should explain how many preferences the voter may make and how these should be indicated on the ballot paper.

Electronic ballot:  Electronic ballot using the internet and a dedicated member’s website can also provide a secure way of organising a ballot.  In such cases the use of a member sensitive password can offer the security needed to ensure that each member has one vote only.  The other advantage of such a system is that the count can be immediate and, where a more complicated voting system is applied, the results calculated with specialist software.  The key issue to prevent with an electronic voting system is that a running total is not shown online because this might influence the way voters cast their vote.

With electronic voting the ballot ‘paper’ should appear in the same way as for a paper ballot; the candidates should be listed in alphabetical order and the instructions on how to complete the ballot should also be provided.

Voting systems

There are any number of voting systems, first past the post, single transferable vote (STV), lists, runoff voting and many more.  For the purposes of relatively small electoral systems such as those found in any organisation, the ‘first past the post or single transferable vote offer the most reliable results.

The first past the post system is well known as the person with the most votes wins.  Critics condemn this system because the winner might have less than half of the votes cast and yet still win; the argument being that they did not receive support from the majority of the voters.  The single transferable vote aims to overcome this by allowing a person to choose candidates by order of preference.  Critics of this system point out that it can lead to a candidate who gets more second or third preference votes to win and therefore may not represent the strongest candidate in the list.

In short there is no perfect system.  For simple one seat type of elections we still recommend the first past the post system.  For elections where more than one candidate is elected then the single transferable vote has its merits.

The Electoral Reform Society under Electoral Reform Services (www.erbs.co.uk) offers a unique service where they will organise a range of ballot based services for your organisation. 

The Count

The count should take place as soon as possible after the poll has closed.  If the ballot is conducted by post then a secure place must be provided for the storing of those ballot papers which might be received over a period of several weeks.  The envelopes in which they have been received should remain unopened until the count commences.  If polling points are provided in the offices of the organisation then secure ballot boxes are needed and their contents should remain secure and untouched until all ballot papers have been brought to one central counting area.

If a ballot is conducted electronically, then the result may be obtained in a matter of a few minutes.  In these circumstances, the official receipt of the number of votes cast and received for each candidate should be overseen by more than one official and possibly the candidates themselves.

Postal ballot procedure:  Where the count is undertaken for a postal ballot, the most usual procedure, then a number of strict rules should be observed.

• A limited number of people should be allowed into the counting room
• There should be sufficient counters to handle the number of ballot papers issued
• Candidates should be allowed to be present or possibly an appointed representative if they are unable to attend in person
• There should be only one person responsible for the count and for the announcement of the result.  This person is usually referred to as the Returning Officer.

The Count:  Once these basic ground rules are observed the count can begin.

• The outer envelope should be opened revealing the ballot paper envelope and declaration form.  If the declaration form is not there the ballot envelope should be put to one side and rejected for two reasons; the first that the declaration might be inside the ballot envelope which would identify the member and how they had voted, the second that the ballot paper cannot be matched to an individual voter and therefore could be a duplication
• The declaration form should be marked off against a master register of voters.  This ensures that no voter has voted more than once.  If a declaration form for the same voter were to emerge more than once then the second ballot paper would be rejected
• Once this check against members has been completed, the ballot papers should be removed from the ballot envelope and mixed
• Then the count itself can begin; ideally using a score sheet when there are multiple candidates on one ballot paper or where STV is used.  Where the vote is for just one candidate then the ballot papers are normally placed into piles for each candidate
• At no point should anyone other than the counters appointed by the returning officer touch or interfere with the procedure.  The candidates and appointed scrutineers can watch and may question but should not touch or interfere with the ballot papers themselves
• Once all of the papers are counted and the tally made, the returning officer should then gather the candidates together and announce the result.  If any candidate rejects the result and asks for a recount, unless the returning officer thinks it is unreasonable then a recount should be held
• The candidates should also be informed of the number of spoilt or rejected ballot papers
• In the event of a tie the returning officer has three further options.  The first option is to recount to ensure that papers were placed in the correct pile and counted.  The second option is to ask both candidates if one of them wishes to withdraw.   Where these options do not resolve the tie then the returning officer should toss a coin in front of the candidates involved.  The candidate who comes alphabetically first should call.  Although this may sound archaic it is still very much the accepted way of resolving a tie.
• Once the candidates are satisfied that the count has been completed the returning officer can then announce the results formally
• The formal result of the ballot should be notified to the members through the website and/or the organisation’s normal communications procedures as soon as possible after the count.  Results should indicate number of ballot papers issued, number of ballot papers received, number of spoilt & rejected ballot papers, number of votes for each person and who was elected.

After the count

As well as the announcement of the result of the ballot a number of other matters should be completed.

Written notification to candidates:  All candidates should receive a written notification of the result informing them as to whether they have been successful or not.  Successful candidates should be asked to complete a form accepting their election.  There have been cases where the candidate has decided not to take up his elected position.  In such cases the returning officer and governing body will have to decide whether a re-run of the ballot is necessary or whether the person on the list with the next largest number of votes can be elected.

Sealing and storing count materials:  The ballot papers, declaration forms, master list of those who voted and any rejected envelopes or spoilt ballot papers should each be individually sealed in envelopes.  These envelopes should then be placed into a sealed box and held for a minimum of six months.  This allows for any legal challenge to the election.  It must be stressed that the envelopes and box should be sealed and stored in such a way that it is entirely tamper proof.

Induction for new members:  Newly elected members will be faced with attending their first meeting with little knowledge of what to expect.  It is best practice for the organisation to hold an induction course for newly elected members to advise them of their duties and responsibilities as well as the work of the committee.

Conclusion

This paper has outlined the bare necessities for an election.  The amount of paper work that is generated can be enormous.  It is important that the person acting as returning officer plans each stage very carefully and ensures that each item of paper work is properly completed.  Of particular importance with all elections is that any paperwork, but especially instructions, are written as simply as possible to avoid ambiguity or confusion.

The other over-riding responsibility of the retuning officer is to ensure that all candidates are treated equally and fairly.  If everyone is treated exactly the same any complaints will hold little credence; if they are not then the reputation of both the organisation and the returning officer is likely to be  severely damaged.

Finally, a good election creates debate, excitement and activity which helps bring the organisation alive; it refreshes the organisation and keeps it looking to the future.

Note:  For ease of reading the male gender has been used throughout this paper.  For ‘he’ & ‘his’ please read ‘she’ and ‘hers’ etc where appropriate.

There is a big difference between knowing the theory and making it happen. For help in implementing your communications practices email us now.