Talk:One member, one vote

message: It was obvious to me that the previous incarnation of this article was inexcusably abominable.  I have split OMOV into two articles, one American, dealing with One Man, One Vote (which no one in the states calls 'OMOV'), and this article, One Member One Vote.  My understanding of the Anglo-Canadian concept is very limited, but I am certain that I am closer to this than was the previous author of OMOV.  OMOV—the acronym—is simply not part of the American political jaron.  And "One Man, One Vote" clearly means nothing along the lines of "One Member One Vote".
I decided against creating a disambiguation page, for the reason that anyone who plugs in "OMOV" is likely not looking for the American concept. Unschool 11:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete article (to say the least) 

message: This will need tidying as the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats have both different systems, differing histories and there are still rows about whether the members actually have a say. Here's a potted summary for the time being:
Conservatives:
*Had a series of ballots of MPs only (with a provision asking MPs to pay attention to feeling in the wider party but no way to monitor and enforce this) to select the leader between 1965 and 1998.
*Since 1998:
**MPs retain the power to remove a leader from office in a simple yes-no confidence vote. This is called when a certain percentage of MPs petition for one.
**It's relatively easy for an MP to be formally nominated for leadership election - the numbers required are low.
**In the leadership election MPs hold a series of ballots to reduce the candidates to two (eliminating one on each ballot).
**The two remaining candidates are then put to the party at large in a postal ballot and the candidate with the most votes wins.
The main issues are that MPs can remove a leader who has been elected by the wider party and also stop potentially popular candidates from reaching the full membership (indeed some have declined to stand precisely because of this hurdle). And the membership at large doesn't get a full say, only over the candidates offered.
Labour:
*Had a series of ballots of MPs only to select the leader and deputy between 1922 and 1980.
*In 1981 it instigated an electoral college with 40% of votes cast by affiliated trade unions (with each union casting its entire vote en block), 30% cast by constituency parties (again each en block and I think cast by the executive) and 30% by MPs (I forget when MEPs got a look in).
*The 1993 changes altered the percentages to 33-33-33 and remove the block vote with each union and constituency party member having a vote which is weighted in proportion in the contest.
The main issues are "ballot access" (not a term used in the UK) - 12.5% of sitting MPs are requird to be successfully nominated and this year this meant that no candidate was able to oppose Gordon Brown; that ballots cast are not of equal weight (a common requirement for a system to be "one member one vote"); and that those who are members of more than one section of the party get multiple votes (again not exactly OMOV).
Liberal Democrats (and predecessors):
*The Liberals had a series of ballots of MPs only to select the leader.
*At some point between 1967 (Thorpe's election) and 1976 (Steel's) a very complicated electoral college was put in place with the voting strength of constituency parties being based on several factors, including the size of the Liberal vote in the preceding election.
*Then between 1976 and 1988 (the merger) the party moved to a system of one member, one vote, but no Liberal leadership election occurred under the system.
*The Social Democrats broke away from Labour in part because they opposed the block vote and electoral college introduced, but were split between those who thought only MPs should elect the leader and those who supported a one member one vote system. The latter won.
*In 1988 the merged party adopted a one member one vote system.
*Ballot access has been slightly modified recently - originally only 2 MPs were required to nominate a candidate but a change a few years ago altered this to a percentage (which currently works out at 7 MPs). However MPs can nominate more than one candidate.
*(The position often called the "Liberal Democrat deputy leader" is actually only the deputy leader of the party in the House of Commons and is elected by just the MPs.)
*Of course even without a formal say in the process, the Liberal Democrat parliamentary party can still be quite influential in regards the leadership, as Charles Kennedy learned the hard way.
Timrollpickering 16:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Parties 

message: Our current intro to the UK Labour section says:
:The traditional procedure in the Labour Party called for the leadership of trade unions to cast all the votes of their membership as a bloc, often in the tens or hundreds of thousands. They gained enormous leverage. However, until 1981, the system for choosing the party leader was by a secret ballot of Labour MPs.
This seems contradictory to me. Both voting systems share the similarity of not being "one member, one vote". But a bloc vote of labour unions is pretty different from a vote of Labour MPs. What kinds of votes is this passage referring to? --Delirium (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Labour practice