Our rules for Federal Party internal elections: your views please

Nomination thresholds

After each set of large internal elections, we have a review that makes recommendations for any changes in the way they are run to make ahead of the next set. The last review recommended that the nominations thresholds for various party posts be reviewed to see whether they should be increased.

The Federal Board is now consulting members for views on this ahead of deciding whether or not to propose any changes for Federal Conference in March to approve and if so, what those changes should be. The proposals will need submitting in good time ahead of that, and hence this consultation now.

As many people may not have given much attention to our nomination rules previously, this piece sets out in a balanced way the most commonly used arguments for and against change. You may well have other points to argue for or against change too. The list below is set out in order to help stimulate the discussion on the topic and to try to introduce the arguments in a balanced way.

Broadly speaking, the arguments in favour of higher nomination thresholds are:

1. There was very strong feedback from some members after the last big round of Federal Party internal elections that they found the total number of candidates off putting and it made voting harder. Party members were asked to vote on up to 177 candidates across the different posts up for election. (Some members had slightly fewer to vote on as the electorates varied for some elections.) Academic research also suggests that longer ballot papers reduce participation.
2. Our nomination thresholds were mostly set before the introduction of online nominations, and the online process has made it much easier to reach them, meaning they have in effect been cut.
3. The need to get sufficient nominations from other members acts as a bit of a quality threshold on the candidates who go on the ballot paper.

The main arguments against higher nomination thresholds are:

1. Lower thresholds make it easier for people, especially newer party members, to fully engage in our internal democracy and we should welcome that.
2. We argue for lower, not higher, nomination thresholds in public elections, such as supporting the switch from 10 signatures to 2 signatures for local council candidates.
3. It is fairly easy to ask around electronically for nomination signatures, so there is good reason to doubt that higher thresholds will change the quality of candidates, but processing them will add to the administrative burden of the elections.

The current thresholds for the elections being consulted on are:

A candidate for membership of a federal committee [in the all-member elections] must be a member of the Liberal Democrats and must be nominated by any Local Party, any Regional Party, any State Party, any Affiliated Organisation (including the Affiliated Organisation or Organisations representing youth and/or students) or any 10 party members.

and

A candidate for the office of Vice President responsible for working with ethnic minority communities must be a member of the Liberal Democrats and must be nominated by any Local Party, any Regional Party, any State Party, any Affiliated Organisation, or any 10 party members.

To provide some context, for Federal Party President and Leader the threshold is, “not less than 200 party members in not less than 20 Local Parties” with for Leader the additional requirement of “not less than 10 percent of other members of the Parliamentary Party in the House of Commons”. The rules for these two posts are not being consulted on as the reviews after those elections did not find any issues that led to a recommendation to look again.

For the Vice President role, though, the existence of those other higher thresholds for President and Leader means there is an additional argument sometimes made, which is that of ‘parity of esteem’, i.e. the importance of the role should be reflected in the nomination requirements matching those of a post such as President. The main counter argument used is that for a post about increasing diversity, thresholds should be set in as inclusive a way as possible.

The Federal Board has not made any decision yet on what to propose other than to ask members for their views. So please let us know them with this quick survey. Please complete this survey by noon on Friday 3 January.

Other proposed election regulation changes

In addition to consulting on possible changes in the nominations threshold, the Board is also proposing to submit to Spring Federal Conference for ratification some technical improvements to our internal election regulations. Again, these flow from the recommendations of the internal election review.

The Board is publishing its draft for comment, so that any imprecisions or other flaws in the drafting of these changes can be remedied ahead of the yes/no ratification vote.

Please send your feedback on the changes below to president@libdems.org.uk by noon on Friday 3 January.

As well as any comments on the changes below, if there are any other technical improvements to the election regulations to suggest that have not been picked up by the election review, the Board would also be happy to hear them.

The full current election regulations are at the end of the Federal Constitution pdf on the party website.

Proposed wording changes

The internal elections review recommended that:

Clauses 1 and 43 of the Regulations should be amended to include reference to “Federal Council”.

The recommendation of the RO to bring Clauses 7 and 8 of the Regulations in line with each other is agreed i.e. alteration to the Elections timetable is permitted if a significant national event makes it prudent.

The Returning Officer has therefore recommended, and subject to feedback the Board has agreed to propose, the following wording changes, with added wording in bold and removed wording crossed out:

Regulation #1: “... These regulations set out procedures for the election by all members of the federal party of the Leader, President, Vice President responsible for working with ethnic minority communities, and federal committee and Federal Council posts which are filled by ballots of all party members. References in these regulations to “federal committee(s)” shall also be taken to include the Federal Council.”

Regulation #7: “... Once the timetable for any election has been announced but before the opening of nominations, the Federal Board may postpone the election if the timetable conflicts with a general election or a referendum covering England, Scotland, Wales or any combination thereof, or any other significant event situation, such as a public health crisis, that in the Board’s view would unduly hinder the conduct of the election.”

Regulation #8: “After the opening of nominations for any election, the Returning Officer may postpone or suspend the election if it would conflict with a general election or a referendum covering England, Scotland, Wales or any combination thereof, or any other significant event civil or public health emergency, that in the Returning Officer’s view would unduly hinder the conduct of the election.”

Regulation #43: The provisions set out in paragraphs 44–53 shall apply to elections which are to be conducted under these election regulations for federal committee and Federal Council posts which are filled by ballots of all party members or where a decision has been taken to use them for other elections.”

Both the internal election review and the Federal Appeals Panel also recommended changing Regulation #17, which prohibits campaigning that ‘defames’ a candidate. Both made the point that defamation is a legal test, and indeed can be a complicated legal test. Therefore, requiring the Returning Officer to make a judgement on whether or not something reaches that legal test is unhelpful as the Returning Officer is not required to be a judge or defamation lawyer expert. In addition, the use of ‘defame’ predates both our Code of Conduct and our independent complaints system, and so which could now have a role in place of that legal test.

Therefore after consulting with the Returning Officer the following new draft has been prepared, protecting staff (who cannot answer back during an election) and otherwise resting on our established complaints process to act on inappropriate behaviour:

Regulation #17: No material published or circulated by or on behalf of a candidate shall defame by name or implication any other candidate and no candidate shall so defame any other candidate in the course of personal canvassing. No candidate or persons acting on behalf of a candidate will use their own material or access to publicity to disparage any members of staff.

All candidates and members acting on their behalf are governed by the Code of Conduct for Members and Registered Supporters and shall in particular follow its provisions when making any reference by name or implication to other candidates.

In addition, the Returning Officer has recommended the following changes based on the other decisions that the Board took to assist with the transparency of results:

Regulation #18: “All contested elections shall be conducted by secret ballot and the single transferable vote. Counts shall be conducted in accordance with the current edition of the Electoral Reform Society´s publication How to Conduct an Election by the Single Transferable Vote, subject to the application of paragraph 53 below for federal committee elections. On completion of the count, the election result will be published on the Party website giving details of all stages of the count.”

Regulation #54: “Nominations must be accompanied by the written consent of the candidate. In order to be covered by one of the minimum representation requirements under Articles 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7 of the constitution, a candidate must submit information with their nomination paper as to which of the protected characteristics apply to themselves. Candidates will be informed on the nomination form that if they make such a submission, then when the election results are published, it may be possible for someone to infer some information regarding the fact that they made such a submission.

Please send your feedback on these changes, or any other technical improvements you have spotted, to president@libdems.org.uk by noon on Friday 3 January. Thank you.