English Chess Forum

David Pardoe wrote:Many might regard the recent elections as a sham.

Do you agree?

Sean Hewitt wrote:

David Pardoe wrote:Many might regard the recent elections as a sham.

Do you agree?

There was apparently lobbying of named representatives in favour of AP by associates or possibly employees. Up to a point, that might have been necessary as anyone not following International chess wouldn't have had a clue why he had a sudden urge to become ECF president without ever having played a single game in chess run in connection with the ECF. For that matter there was an intervention by a magazine proprietor not only conditionally backing AP but attempting to veto a Non-Exec candidate.

There may of course be some middle ground between "a sham" and "not a sham", perhaps consisting of something to the effect of "perfectly constitutional, but unsatisfactory in a variety of respects".

It depends what is meant by "sham".

My ancient Oxford Concise Dictionary suggests that the noun means:

"Imposture, pretence, humbug; person or thing pretending to be something it is not".

The elections were carried out according to ECF regulations, as far as I am aware; it was not a pretend election. All elected are legitimate ECF officials and the meeting's resolutions are bona fide.

Whether the electoral system, which gives the appearance of democracy, is actually very democratic at all (for example, given the block votes) is another matter being vigorously debated on other threads.

This is very funny indeed!

What is the ECF accused of? Ballot stuffing? Treating? Threats? Frog-marching passers by to the polling booth? Plying council members with alcohol before the election?

Some people need brain transplantation.

Paul McKeown wrote:
Some people need brain transplantation.

Paul,

I believe you mean "implant" rather than transplant.

Transplant assumes that there is something to replace rather than simply a void.

You might well be right, John.

Roger de Coverly wrote:For that matter there was an intervention by a magazine proprietor not only conditionally backing AP but attempting to veto a Non-Exec candidate.

I'm assuming that you're referring to Malcolm Pein; the founder of the London Chess Classic and Chess in Schools and Communities deserves slightly better than to be considered a `magazine proprieter`. And if you are referring to the post made on here on his behalf I wouldn't call it an `intervention`. He had been asked his opinion so he provided it - I for one consider his views important. Last year he used his editorial to express reservations about Roger Edwards and endorse Nigel Short over Rupert Jones without complaint.

Andrew Zigmond wrote:

Roger de Coverly wrote:For that matter there was an intervention by a magazine proprietor not only conditionally backing AP but attempting to veto a Non-Exec candidate.

I'm assuming that you're referring to Malcolm Pein; the founder of the London Chess Classic and Chess in Schools and Communities deserves slightly better than to be considered a `magazine proprieter`. And if you are referring to the post made on here on his behalf I wouldn't call it an `intervention`. He had been asked his opinion so he provided it - I for one consider his views important. Last year he used his editorial to express reservations about Roger Edwards and endorse Nigel Short over Rupert Jones without complaint.

Actually I believe that Roger did express dissatisfaction about Malcolm's opposition to RE at the time!

How can as many as three people go so far as to call the elections a "sham" under any sensible definition of the word?

Jonathan Rogers wrote:How can as many as three people go so far as to call the elections a "sham" under any sensible definition of the word?

Either the people are less sensible than the definition, or they are trolls.

Jonathan Rogers wrote:How can as many as three people go so far as to call the elections a "sham" under any sensible definition of the word?

it wouldn't be my term of choice, but some people might be under the impression that the large number of votes collected in a small number of hands may have served to render the election less representative than it should have been, with a few people essentially able to decide the outcome.

(I have not voted in the poll.)

JustinHorton wrote:

Jonathan Rogers wrote:How can as many as three people go so far as to call the elections a "sham" under any sensible definition of the word?

it wouldn't be my term of choice, but some people might be under the impression that the large number of votes collected in a small number of hands may have served to render the election less representative than it should have been, with a few people essentially able to decide the outcome.

(I have not voted in the poll.)

Agreed, Justin.

I haven't voted either.

Now if the quotation had read "Many might regard the recent elections as a sham of democracy" ........

Another alternative question might be `Do you believe that a sinister and unrepresentative clique overrode the clear preference of ECF members and elected a President and CEO who will now act to the detriment of English chess`. The answer in my opinion is no; a group of hard working volunteers who make English happen made a difficult decision in good faith.

Yeah Andrew but it doesn't actually have to be "sinister", any more than it has to be unconstitutional to raise democratic concerns.

Thing is, nobody's obliged to take a blind bit of notice - it's over, one side won and the other lost. But in the second if things go wrong, then how they came to pass in the first place is likely to be an issue. And secondly, if a fair number of people really do feel that this was an unfair fight, then this may have consequences for the internal life of the ECF. Worth thinking about, perhaps.

Justin, everyone who wanted had the opportunity to put themselves forward or to persuade their choice to stand. No one was barred, no one was prevented from standing on a platform. The problem was, no one stood for the role of President who could inspire confidence. It's not a sham, it's just a deep pit of couldn't give a toss.

Apparently, a fair number of people really don't feel this was an unfair fight, given the results of this poll, one incidentally that more people have responded to than the one regarding changing the franchise. The problem for the poll regarding changing the franchise is that no one is prepared to stick their necks out to explain why their preferred choice is best. Whereas this one is easy: paranoiac hyperbole just gives most people the nark.