I don't know. Our church does something similar or even more so: there are quarterly members' meetings with votes on things like new staff appointments, major spending on the building (like solar panels), changes to the administrative structure, etc. And it's not even "vote for candidate A, B, or C, and A is the default recommendation"; it's "the proposal is to appoint candidate A; vote yes or no."
The vast majority of these votes are unanimous. I've previously cynically described it as "democracy theatre".
But I think it does have some value, just as a safeguard or a veto power. The default expectation is that the decisions made by the leaders will go ahead, but the congregation has the power to veto them if necessary, which helps prevent abuse of power and bad decisions.
I think it makes sense to compare it not with a true democracy, but with a church where the leaders make those decisions without that safeguard - and to note that that's generally seen as OK.
Similarly, AFAIK there are organisations similar to Nationwide and the National Trust where decisions are made unilaterally from the top and this is seen as OK. So "this is what we plan to do, but you can veto it if you want" seems like a variation on that, and an improvement on it, rather than a variation on actual democracy.
I may be misunderstanding how your church works, but I don't think it is like that. I have no problem with Yes/No proposals recommended by the executive (many of the resolutions are like this).
My understanding is that to vote on these, you would have to attend the members' meeting, and that the yes/no votes would be taken at various intervals throughout that? And that presumably, if there was a more controversial vote, or something controversial raised by a member, that would also be debated and then voted on by those there? That all seems fine to me - even if a lot are fairly tick-box.
It would become analogous to this situation if your church said, 'Hey, you could attend this members' meeting, or you could tick a box to say you'll vote with the pastor on every issue'. And then in the meeting on every vote - including by some raised by the members, that the pastor opposed - the pastor's vote counted for c. 75% of the numbers there.
Re. the last point, the rhetoric of these organisations feels like they are emphasising the democratic aspect of it; for example, they encourage members to bring resolutions to the AGM to be voted on, and make a point of how their council/board is elected. So it seems fair to judge them on that.
Are the motions known in advance, or are they brought up for the first time at the meeting and people who've ticked the quick vote box are assumed to vote with whatever the leadership think about these previously-unknown issues?
I thought from your original post that they were known in advance (based on the example of a ballot paper with referenda about cannabis, mobile phones, Rwanda, etc).
But your latest reply sounds like you're talking about people delegating their vote to the leadership in advance without knowing what the issues will be. (FWIW, our church doesn't do this - any issues to be voted on in a meeting are raised in advance and published in advance, not raised for the first time at the meeting where they're voted on - but that's tangential to the main discussion about the National Trust etc.)
I agree those are different things (and I'm now confused as to which of them your OP was about), and I think I agree with your implication that the second one is worse... although the second is closer to what we actually have nationally in a representative democracy!
While you're quite right that Baptist churches don't use the quick vote hack, Rachael is also right that it is so unusual for a motion to fail that it does feel like democracy theatre, however this hides quite a few important points:
1. Every decade or two the church meeting decides the leadership are wrong and vetos something, so it's not theatre the way Russian elections are.
2. Church elections aren't uncompetitive because the leadership have them sewn up, but because not enough people are willing to do the hard work of leading. Usually if more than enough people are willing them one of them says "I just cared about it getting done, if it can get done without me having to do it - brilliant - I'll stand down".
3. Churches value unity, and with their shared values, and the absence of a hostile media and special interest groups, can often achieve it. They will often put off the controversial and see if they can find a way to stop it being controversial rather than force through an answer.
Hmm, I seem to have confused things in my reply. I'll try to clarify.
Rachael, Neil's description of our Baptist churches work matches my description. Assuming yours is similar, I don't really see why you think it is like the situation I describe. Neither of the two specific phenomena you describe - the executive proposing specific motions, and sometimes these being uncontroversial - are things I have any problem with.
In the National Trust and Nationwide elections most people vote by post / electronically. Yes, all the information is available to them, just as it is in general elections.
My issue is that getting informed is often tedious (whether that's by reading all the literature, or attending the church meeting to listen to the arguments) and time-consuming. If you give people a prominent option to say 'Just tick here and vote for all the positions one side recommends' that is giving that side an unfair advantage. This would be clearly true in a national election and I think is also true in the Nationwide or National Trust situation. It would also be true in the church meeting; if there was an option, 'you don't have to attend, just give your vote to the pastor' that would probably stop any serious challenge (as per Neil's point 1) or at least make it much harder (even if motions were known in advance; the pastor's side would scoop up all the less committed people).
I don't know. Our church does something similar or even more so: there are quarterly members' meetings with votes on things like new staff appointments, major spending on the building (like solar panels), changes to the administrative structure, etc. And it's not even "vote for candidate A, B, or C, and A is the default recommendation"; it's "the proposal is to appoint candidate A; vote yes or no."
The vast majority of these votes are unanimous. I've previously cynically described it as "democracy theatre".
But I think it does have some value, just as a safeguard or a veto power. The default expectation is that the decisions made by the leaders will go ahead, but the congregation has the power to veto them if necessary, which helps prevent abuse of power and bad decisions.
I think it makes sense to compare it not with a true democracy, but with a church where the leaders make those decisions without that safeguard - and to note that that's generally seen as OK.
Similarly, AFAIK there are organisations similar to Nationwide and the National Trust where decisions are made unilaterally from the top and this is seen as OK. So "this is what we plan to do, but you can veto it if you want" seems like a variation on that, and an improvement on it, rather than a variation on actual democracy.
I may be misunderstanding how your church works, but I don't think it is like that. I have no problem with Yes/No proposals recommended by the executive (many of the resolutions are like this).
My understanding is that to vote on these, you would have to attend the members' meeting, and that the yes/no votes would be taken at various intervals throughout that? And that presumably, if there was a more controversial vote, or something controversial raised by a member, that would also be debated and then voted on by those there? That all seems fine to me - even if a lot are fairly tick-box.
It would become analogous to this situation if your church said, 'Hey, you could attend this members' meeting, or you could tick a box to say you'll vote with the pastor on every issue'. And then in the meeting on every vote - including by some raised by the members, that the pastor opposed - the pastor's vote counted for c. 75% of the numbers there.
Re. the last point, the rhetoric of these organisations feels like they are emphasising the democratic aspect of it; for example, they encourage members to bring resolutions to the AGM to be voted on, and make a point of how their council/board is elected. So it seems fair to judge them on that.
Are the motions known in advance, or are they brought up for the first time at the meeting and people who've ticked the quick vote box are assumed to vote with whatever the leadership think about these previously-unknown issues?
I thought from your original post that they were known in advance (based on the example of a ballot paper with referenda about cannabis, mobile phones, Rwanda, etc).
But your latest reply sounds like you're talking about people delegating their vote to the leadership in advance without knowing what the issues will be. (FWIW, our church doesn't do this - any issues to be voted on in a meeting are raised in advance and published in advance, not raised for the first time at the meeting where they're voted on - but that's tangential to the main discussion about the National Trust etc.)
I agree those are different things (and I'm now confused as to which of them your OP was about), and I think I agree with your implication that the second one is worse... although the second is closer to what we actually have nationally in a representative democracy!
While you're quite right that Baptist churches don't use the quick vote hack, Rachael is also right that it is so unusual for a motion to fail that it does feel like democracy theatre, however this hides quite a few important points:
1. Every decade or two the church meeting decides the leadership are wrong and vetos something, so it's not theatre the way Russian elections are.
2. Church elections aren't uncompetitive because the leadership have them sewn up, but because not enough people are willing to do the hard work of leading. Usually if more than enough people are willing them one of them says "I just cared about it getting done, if it can get done without me having to do it - brilliant - I'll stand down".
3. Churches value unity, and with their shared values, and the absence of a hostile media and special interest groups, can often achieve it. They will often put off the controversial and see if they can find a way to stop it being controversial rather than force through an answer.
Hmm, I seem to have confused things in my reply. I'll try to clarify.
Rachael, Neil's description of our Baptist churches work matches my description. Assuming yours is similar, I don't really see why you think it is like the situation I describe. Neither of the two specific phenomena you describe - the executive proposing specific motions, and sometimes these being uncontroversial - are things I have any problem with.
In the National Trust and Nationwide elections most people vote by post / electronically. Yes, all the information is available to them, just as it is in general elections.
My issue is that getting informed is often tedious (whether that's by reading all the literature, or attending the church meeting to listen to the arguments) and time-consuming. If you give people a prominent option to say 'Just tick here and vote for all the positions one side recommends' that is giving that side an unfair advantage. This would be clearly true in a national election and I think is also true in the Nationwide or National Trust situation. It would also be true in the church meeting; if there was an option, 'you don't have to attend, just give your vote to the pastor' that would probably stop any serious challenge (as per Neil's point 1) or at least make it much harder (even if motions were known in advance; the pastor's side would scoop up all the less committed people).