This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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:
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:
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):
Timrollpickering 16:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Our current intro to the UK Labour section says:
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)
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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:
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:
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):
Timrollpickering 16:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Our current intro to the UK Labour section says:
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)