I've Just Received an Invitation To Vote !!

[Canalwatcher]

Definitely something untoward going on. I've just checked my email and found an email from the Electoral Reform Society dated 15th December 2015 and titled:

 

"Reminder: Voting closes at 23.59 this Thursday 17 December 2015"

 

Having searched my email this is the only communication I've had from them. Were the original emails inviting us to vote from the ERS too, or from CRT?

 

 

 

(Edit to add the date)

I also received the this email from the ERS. I have received two or three from them the first of which was September I think. I remember in June I had to update my original stoppages email registration with CRT (which I had originally with BW) as it wasn't working to renew my licence online. I was asked in an email to phone CRT which I did and after that the renewal went smoothly as in previous years. perhaps that's what triggered the ability to get the first ERS email in September?

 

Mick

[alan_fincher]

Don't quite see the point in voting for people you don't believe are worth voting for. Having said that its a fair point to question whether on the basis of the previous few years there's any point in voting at all.

My aim in ranking every candidate right down to the one from very last, (even though I believe the majority are really not at all strong candidates), was to do the maximum that any one boater can do to ensure that the one I specifically left out of my list has even an infinitesimallyreduced chance of getting elected, because of my actions!

 

The way that the single transferable vote works is that if your vote is not going to help someone higher up your list it ultimately will keep becoming available to those further down, until it perhaps benefits one of them.

 

A pretty sad way to have to operate, but there are a couple I don't want elected at any cost. (Though I think one of them will probably still top the poll anyway...... )

 

I would have preferred a choice of at least 4 candidates I considered were good ones, but the list failed to produce that, and most on the list made no apparent effort beyond their 150 words to try and get my vote, which shows no strong commitment to the task ahead.

 

However, I accept it is to some extent my fault if I don't get the representatives I think we deserve - with hindsight I should have stood again this time, but decided not to.

[jenlyn]

I voted Vaughan Welch.

[grahamjnewman]

what time are the results being announced ?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

what time are the results being announced ?

ERS website says by 5pm today.

[alan_fincher]

what time are the results being announced ?

 

I suspect far less time will be needed to derive the results from the votes this time!

 

By "time" I hope I mean "computer time", but the overall process has exuded so little confidence I wouldn't like to even count on that.

 

Anybody care to predict the turnout - my guess is a lot less than last time.

[MtB]

500

[alan_fincher]

500

 

I doubt it......

 

7,556 votes were cast last time.

 

I think they should be able to count on at least a 1000, but who knows?

[jenlyn]

3470

[alan_fincher]

3470

 

If so, less than half last time, and probably well short of 10% of those entitled to?

 

I thought it might have been even less to be honest.

 

EDIT: Sorry - I misunderstood _ thought that was the actual number not your guess.

 

Actual number it seems who voted (boater elections) was just 1,868, just 6.8% of those entitled to do so.

 

That is massively less than the 7,556 that voted last time, so I think is fair statement of how much many boaters actually feel these 4 boater places on council have actually been.

 

 

Edited December 18, 2015 by alan_fincher

[jenlyn]

 

If so, less than half last time, and probably well short of 10% of those entitled to?

 

I thought it might have been even less to be honest.

Well, it was half of my figure again. Apathy rules it seems.

Obviously not a good result overall for the trust

Election for Private Boating

Date 12/18/2015

Number to be elected 4

Valid votes 1860

Invalid votes 0

Quota 372

eSTV Reg. 54096 2.0.16

Election rules ERS97

Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4

First Surplus of Exclusion of Exclusion of

Candidates Preferences PRETTYMAN, Phil STOCKER, Roger+WICKES, Steven John OWEN, Jim

MCCABE, Ruth 217 4.83 221.83 16.47 238.3 62 300.3

OWEN, Jim 175 2.94 177.94 7.63 185.57 ‐182 3.57

PHASEY, Andrew 297 17.64 314.64 23.94 338.58 25 363.58 3rd Elected

PRETTYMAN, Phil 456 ‐84 372 372 372 1st Elected

RIDGWAY, Stella 340 20.37 360.37 25 385.37 385.37 2nd Elected

STOCKER, Roger 89 12.39 101.39 ‐101.39 ‐ ‐

WELCH, Vaughan 252 20.16 272.16 21.36 293.52 41 334.52 4th Elected

WICKES, Steven John 34 2.73 36.73 ‐36.73 ‐ ‐

Non‐transferable 2.94 2.94 43.72 46.66 54 100.66

Totals 1860 1860 1860 1860

[MtB]

 

Well, it was half of my figure again. Apathy rules it seems.

 

 

Not necessarily. Deliberate abstention is a perfectly valid democratic option and best not confused with apathy. Although the casual observer may not be able to tell the difference, the voter themselves knows.

[jenlyn]

 

 

Not necessarily. Deliberate abstention is a perfectly valid democratic option and best not confused with apathy. Although the casual observer may not be able to tell the difference, the voter themselves knows.

Yep. I suspect there were a few who chose not to bite, but I suspect apathy was the biggest player.

[Alan de Enfield]

I was going to declare apathy but in the end I couldn't be bothered.

[MtB]

Yep. I suspect there were a few who chose not to bite, but I suspect apathy was the biggest player.

 

 

It's a fine line between lack of faith that anyone elected will have prayer of a chance of making any difference so not worth bothering voting, and apathy.

[cuthound]

So now the ball is in CRT's court. They must demonstrate that the boater representatives make a visible difference during their coming term, so that more people will feel that the voting isn't pointless.

 

I await with bated breath!

[mango]

I would hope that the four boating reps will set about reforming governance of CaRT.

 

If we take it as a given that Council provides a 'check and balance' on the trustees, having the powers of appointment and dismissal, there are three issues that prevent it being effective -

• The council's chairmanship - how is it that the chair of trustees is also the chair of council? In practice this means that council meeting agenda and format are not dictated by council.
• Appointments Committee - how is it that trustees sit on the councils appointments committee (and chair it) when this committee recommends appointments of trustees?
• How is it that Cart's Trustees appoint one third of Council that then appoints them? I refer, of course, to chairs of waterways partnerships.

I would hope our representatives would tackle these issues rather than individual boater concerns (which can be addressed via national boating organisations or by the individuals themselves).

 

Regular contributors to narrowboatworld have strong opinions, but how many stood in these elections?

[alan_fincher]

Regular contributors to narrowboatworld have strong opinions, but how many stood in these elections?

 

At least one NBW contributor tried to stand in the Boater elections, but was apparently unable to muster the 10 supporters you need to stand.

[mango]

 

At least one NBW contributor tried to stand in the Boater elections, but was apparently unable to muster the 10 supporters you need to stand.

Well if they can't stand perhaps they should sit down and shut up.

[alan_fincher]

Well if they can't stand perhaps they should sit down and shut up.

 

For once, I think we are in full agreement.

 

To me the standard Modus Operandi of most NBW contributors is at best to sit on the sidelines and rail at just how badly BW/CRT/EA/whatever are actually doing at things.

 

They may think their railings are making things better, but unless you are actually prepared to get actively involved to make things better, I think you actually become an irrelevance. If you actually look, nearly all the "copy", (except where it simply is "copied" from elsewhere!), is just none stop criticism - and there is actually very little sensible ever said in terms of suggesting how improvements can be made.

 

Certainly I suspect CRT pay little importance to anything said there, because it is always a flavour of the same stuck record.

 

I think most people who have actually put themselves forward and been successful in this Council electoral process are already several steps ahead in terms of any hope of bringing about real change from those just trotting out the same old bile on Victor's "blog".

 

Others will disagree, of course, (.......particularly the several on here who sometimes write for them!)

[Sea Dog]

It's a fine line between lack of faith that anyone elected will have prayer of a chance of making any difference so not worth bothering voting, and apathy.

Being invited to vote at the 11th hour to select 50% of the standing candidates when most appear to represent a narrow agenda or are unknown to the electorate, isn't going to encourage mass interest and a high turn out either. So there's another factor which could easily be interpreted as apathy to be used as such against boaters' interests in the future.

 

If there's going to be elections, they need to be done better than this. However well meaning, I suspect it's simply too early for such a move.

[mango]

 

For once, I think we are in full agreement.

 

To me the standard Modus Operandi of most NBW contributors is at best to sit on the sidelines and rail at just how badly BW/CRT/EA/whatever are actually doing at things.

 

They may think their railings are making things better, but unless you are actually prepared to get actively involved to make things better, I think you actually become an irrelevance. If you actually look, nearly all the "copy", (except where it simply is "copied" from elsewhere!), is just none stop criticism - and there is actually very little sensible ever said in terms of suggesting how improvements can be made.

 

Certainly I suspect CRT pay little importance to anything said there, because it is always a flavour of the same stuck record.

 

I think most people who have actually put themselves forward and been successful in this Council electoral process are already several steps ahead in terms of any hope of bringing about real change from those just trotting out the same old bile on Victor's "blog".

 

Others will disagree, of course, (.......particularly the several on here who sometimes write for them!)

What concerns me most about nbw is that anyone reading it could be put off the waterways by reading their articles. Hopefully that's a groundless fear but in other areas it is obvious that people do pick up inaccurate and biased information from websites.

[MtB]

Being invited to vote at the 11th hour to select 50% of the standing candidates when most appear to represent a narrow agenda or are unknown to the electorate, isn't going to encourage mass interest and a high turn out either. So there's another factor which could easily be interpreted as apathy to be used as such against boaters' interests in the future.

 

If there's going to be elections, they need to be done better than this. However well meaning, I suspect it's simply too early for such a move.

 

 

A more cynical view might be that it was all done deliberately to create a microscopic turnout, so those elected can be ignored on that pretext.

[alan_fincher]

If there's going to be elections, they need to be done better than this. However well meaning, I suspect it's simply too early for such a move.

 

Well to be fair this is the second round of such elections, the last being not quite a full four years ago.

 

Last time there were (from memory) some 34 "Boater" candidates, and the complaint then was how on earth was one supposed to select just 4 from so many, so it seems on that front you can't win!

 

Of course the actual number standing is down solely to those who decide to do it, and get sufficient supporters..

 

There was however a difference this time with it being all on-line that it was possible to log on close to the end of nominations and see a reasonably up to date of who was trying to stand, and who was supporting them. Last time, when I stood, there wass no way of knowing if you were competing with 10 others or a hundred others until the full list came out.

 

Quite a lot more put their names up this time, but (somewhat amazingly) many failed to find the requisite number of supporters.

 

I was surprised we ended up with only 8 this time, after more than 4 times that number last time, but can't guess all the real reasons why that may have been. I must admit if I had not been up against other things at the time, I seriously considered making a late application, but decided in the end not to try. I now wish I had, because, despite all the downsides, and the lack-lustre nature of the current incumbents, I do actually still think it is important. One more really committed candidate this time it seems might well have knocked the last of "Team IWA" of of Council......

 

 

A more cynical view might be that it was all done deliberately to create a microscopic turnout, so those elected can be ignored on that pretext.

 

What "was done"?

 

You could have stood.

I could have stood.

Sea Dog could have stood (assuming they qualify).

Anybody claiming there is not now genuine CC-er representation could have stood.

 

Nobody but those who chose to stand, (or chose not to), actually dictated the candidate list.

[MtB]

 

What "was done"?

 

 

1) The limiting of voting to those with internet connections

2) The failure to notify a proportion of those eligible to vote that the election was happening in the first place

 

I'd have had no idea the election was taking place had I not been a member of this board, until I received the last minute warning email about a day before the election deadline. Had I designed a strategy to minimise turnout, I could hardly have done it better!