Members of YourParty have been sent an email stating that attendance at the conference will be by sortition, or lottery.
Sortition in this context is completely undemocratic.
It atomises the members. It gives no importance to collective discussions and decisions in the branches.
It prioritises the random experience of the unaccountable individual member over accountable (revocable and replaceable) delegates who represent the collective experience, discussion and decisions of the branch made after democratic debate, in which all views should be heard.
Meanwhile, the leadership IS organised. it has discussed, debated, and decided. The leadership is a faction which is denying the right of the members to organise similarly.
It enables the leadership to get its way without organised challenge.
Can anyone imagine it being tolerated in a trade union for conferences at any level?
YourParty is worse that the Labour Party on this issue.
The email states that: “those selected can choose whether to attend on either or both days.” So places will be given to those who don’t even take the conference seriously enough to participate in all of it.
Individuals who attend will be expected to pay for themselves, rather than the cost being shared amongst the members in the branches who would usually pay when sending branch delegates.
The email justifies selection by sortition or lottery on the grounds that there are no branches yet. This is using a deliberate and undemocratic decision of the leadership to obstruct the establishment and development of branches to justify this further undemocratic manoeuvre in respect of attendance at the conference.
The email also states:
“Round 1 – up to half the places filled by sortition from the whole membership. This has already begun and today we are contacting those selected to ask if they can attend. We are also asking them some questions about themselves, such as their ethnicity, LGBTQ+ status, and whether they have a disability. Together with their gender and location this will give an accurate picture of the makeup of this cohort. If you’re reading this it means you weren’t selected in Round 1. But don’t be disheartened!
“Round 2 – the remaining places filled with the objective of ensuing no group is underrepresented.
“Today we are inviting you to enter Round 2 of sortition. This second round, weighted by demographic categories using the information you supply on your application form, will act as a failsafe, ensuring that no group is underrepresented at the conference.”
So half of the places have already been filled by sortition. When was this done? It says it has ‘begun’, yet also that people chosen are being contacted. Has the Round 1 process been completed? What was the cut-off date for membership? How many went into the pot? Was it all members? Was it just a portion of the members? What criteria were used?
Round 2 is said to be “weighted by demographic categories using the information you supply on your application form, will act as a failsafe, ensuring that no group is underrepresented at the conference.”.
What weights will be given to ensure that none of the mentioned groups are not underrepresented? Who has decided the method to be adopted? Who will be doing the weighting? What algorithm is being used?
How will geographical randomness, likely in sortition, to be corrected? By whom, and how?
It means, doesn’t it, that the element of chance, essential to the method of sortition or lottery, is overruled by other, unknown factors?
So, it isn’t really sortition. It is being massaged by those at the centre or, a better way to express it, by those at the top.
A much fairer system would have been to allow the branches to select delegates and take their own knowledge of the candidates into account to ensure fair representation. At the very least, we must know what the groups are, and how they will be weighted. Failure to provide full information means that the whole process gives an impression of being rigged.
Why are we not being told about how the ‘weighting’ system is being used? Those supervising and implementing it must know. Why are the members not being told?
This whole process smacks of control, manipulation, keeping the members in the dark and manoeuvring by the leadership faction to ensure they get their way.
It does not auger at all well for the future of YourParty.