But if opportunities are available, do members take them? I recently voted in the elections for the RSPCA board and was informed that only about 20 per cent of members do vote. I don't have figures for the largest mass membership organisation, the National Trust, but my guess would be somewhat lower, perhaps 15 per cent.
In the case of the RSPCA, there were six candidates for three seats with full information about all of them. You have to vote for at least two to avoid 'plumping'.
The National Trust also uses first past the post, but has a recommended slate of candidates, usually retiring members of the Council, although one of them was not chosen this year. Some members complain that this is undemocratic, but there is usually a very large number of candidates and reading through all the material would take a considerable amount of time. If an organisation is well run, my inclination is to re-elect.
For the Consumers' Assocation, which is in many respects a commercial organisation, I was presented with five candidates for five seats and could either vote for them, abstain or vote against. All elections were online.
The National Trust also had several motions for the annual meeting with recommendations on how to vote. However, members were left to vote how they wished on trail hunting. Both candidates and motions reflected the present campaign against the Trust's allegedly 'woke' policies, stirred up by The Spectator.
Often attempts are made to use such democratic procedures as exist by factions with a particular agenda.
