Election turnout

[citydrinker]

Given everything I think that a 25% turnout was decent.

 

[Alistair20000]

Posts 2, 4 and 10 explain the reasons.

 

[hardi2b]

My thoughts, although not a trust member, is that people have unfortunately become ambivalent toward the club (note the number of disinterested non attendees at home games) as a result of home performances, I am sorely saddened and concerned by the trend toward non league purgatory. What if the club folded owing a large sum to whom ever what standing does the Trust have w.r.t those debts ?

 

[Strongbow]

What has the trust done to show the average member what a difference it makes to be trust owned?

Who believes that voting in the election will make a blind bit of difference to anything?

The Trust comes across as toothless, shows zero tangible achievements, and worst of all does nothing to make the membership feel like they are part of a group that owns the club.

 

[Terryhall]

What has the trust done to show the average member what a difference it makes to be trust owned?

Who believes that voting in the election will make a blind bit of difference to anything?

The Trust comes across as toothless, shows zero tangible achievements, and worst of all does nothing to make the membership feel like they are part of a group that owns the club.

Off the top of my head in terms of tangible achievements, this AGM the Trust announced a new Trust and Club Agreement that sets out for the first time in writing how the Trust shall oversee the Club. This is a huge step forward from a governance perspective. I don't remember where I read it (it may have been a post on here?) but I think someone indicated that this was the outcome of 18 months of painful legal negotiation which had to be kept completely confidential throughout - so whilst that might look like "nothing was being done", there was clearly a ton of work being put in that has resulted in a strong and binding contractual arrangement for oversight. That to me is a pretty tangible achievement.

If you really believe what you posted, may I ask what your reasons were for not standing for election yourself to effect the change that you think is needed?

 

[BigBanker]

In my opinion it's too lazy to explain it away by saying that members aren't voting because they're only in the Trust for cheap priority status.

We only have around 3,000 Trust members. Our core support is more than this (even when people are staying away because of **** form we still seem to hit the 3k home attendance mark) and I just don't believe that 3 in 4 people on the Big Bank (or in the other two stands) don't care about the club enough to put a few ticks in a few boxes.

Online voting is a good idea, but I doubt the Trust have the knowledge to implement it. Some sort of incentive for voting is also a good idea, as Mackster says increasing the engagement of Trust members is far more valuable than a little lost revenue. I never heard any announcements over the PA at SJP re the election (actually, it's hard to hear any announcements about anything, but that's another issue)...why isn't more done on match day at SJP to encourage voting?

People have busy lives, they need to be reminded to vote. The Trust should be shouting about the elections, not just leaving it to the proactive 1 in 4 who make an effort to find out.

Lots of Trust members moan about the lack of influence the Trust have, but yet the turnover is still only 1 in 4. It just doesn't seem high enough to me and I think the Trust should be tasked with increasing turnout at future elections. If we accept that 25% is as good as it gets, that's pretty poor in my opinion.

 

[richard_portland]

What percentage of the population vote in general elections? Sure it's a lot more than 25% but still a lot of people can't be bothered to vote for who makes up the government of our country.

I do agree that more can be done on match days, and that people need convincing that the trust can achieve good things.

 

[Red Bill]

In my opinion it's too lazy to explain it away by saying that members aren't voting because they're only in the Trust for cheap priority status.

We only have around 3,000 Trust members. Our core support is more than this (even when people are staying away because of **** form we still seem to hit the 3k home attendance mark) and I just don't believe that 3 in 4 people on the Big Bank (or in the other two stands) don't care about the club enough to put a few ticks in a few boxes.

Online voting is a good idea, but I doubt the Trust have the knowledge to implement it. Some sort of incentive for voting is also a good idea, as Mackster says increasing the engagement of Trust members is far more valuable than a little lost revenue. I never heard any announcements over the PA at SJP re the election (actually, it's hard to hear any announcements about anything, but that's another issue)...why isn't more done on match day at SJP to encourage voting?

People have busy lives, they need to be reminded to vote. The Trust should be shouting about the elections, not just leaving it to the proactive 1 in 4 who make an effort to find out.

Lots of Trust members moan about the lack of influence the Trust have, but yet the turnover is still only 1 in 4. It just doesn't seem high enough to me and I think the Trust should be tasked with increasing turnout at future elections. If we accept that 25% is as good as it gets, that's pretty poor in my opinion.

I agree with pretty much all of this, or at least in as much as Its not good enough for the trust (and I mean in its entirety) to simply accept low involvement from members.

Online voting is something I've put to the TB in the past and that and increasing general member involvement is something I'm still going to be working on despite not getting onto the TB this time. For what its worth when I first mentioned this to the TB, Nick Hawker, the outgoing Trust secretary, said this was something he could do in his sleep, but it was our returning officer who had raised issues about it.

I do think however that we will be very luck to ever get more than around 35% voting.

 

[BigBanker]

I do think however that we will be very luck to ever get more than around 35% voting.

A 40% increase on this years total would be significant and well worth putting some effort in to achieve.

My worry is that a low turnout is likely to always be in the interest of the incumbent board members. The lower the turnout, the higher the proportion of voters who are amongst the 'usual faces' and the less chance of any kind of vote for change. As such, perhaps there needs to an obligation for the Trust to put in place systems whereby a larger turnout is encouraged, otherwise asking for the Trust board to encourage high turnout is a bit like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas.

 

[BigBanker]

What percentage of the population vote in general elections? Sure it's a lot more than 25% but still a lot of people can't be bothered to vote for who makes up the government of our country.

Yes, but we're talking about something far more important than the running of our country, this is ECFC!