Interpreting the Ballot

We had a very interesting Canterbury Branch Committee meeting last Thursday. One of the issues we discussed was how we would interpret the results of the amalgamation ballot.

We have given members an assurance that Canterbury's voting delegates at Conference will decide how to interpret the ballot and cast their votes only after close consultation with members. Two alternatives approaches were discussed: one that delegates split their vote in proportion to the views of Canterbury members in the ballot; the other that the Canterbury votes be interpreted as either favouring or opposing amalgamation and that all votes at Conference be cast one way or the other. There are probably other ways of deciding as well but the branch's commitment was to consult members at Canterbury about the best approach to take.

We also decided to share our deliberations on this matter with other branch committees and to see if any other committee has come up with a good formula or good arguments that we haven't thought of.

I am also writing to the returning officer to suggest that the ballot be opened in the presence of Wellington-based scrutineers from the pro and anti camps in order to avoid any accusations about the way the ballot was conducted.

Addendum to this post:

I've just been speaking with Auckland and this is their current thinking (although they too are not certain about the best way forward):

• If the yes vote is less than 65%, conference delegates to unanimously vote No;
• If the yes vote is 65% or more, they need to decide betwen unanimously voting No or dividing their vote in proortion to the way it was cast at Auckland.

I hope we can have some more discussion and clarity on these points before the vote is counted and announced. Discussing it in the abstract is probably preferable so we can really focus on getting a formula that most faithfully reflects the will of the members.

Suggestions or comments on these matters are welcomed.