< Previous page ^ Table of Contents Next page >

Review of arrangements for voting in University elections and on policy and legislative proposals: Report of the Review Committee

26 July 2004

The Council have received the report of the Review Committee appointed to review voting arrangements in University elections and on policy and legislative proposals (see Reporter, p. 570) and publish it for Discussion on 12 October 2004.

Introduction

1.1 In the course of the recent voting on governance (2002-03), criticism was made of the complexity of the propositions put to the Regent House, and it was suggested that the single transferable vote (STV) regulations were not appropriate for such voting. The Council indicated that they would institute a review of these arrangements, and appointed a review committee as follows:

To chair: Dame Veronica Sutherland, President of Lucy Cavendish.
Professor Sir John Baker, CTH
Mr D. Robinson, M
Members of the University Council: Dr G. A Reid, JN; Dr J. M Whitehead, W
Chairman of the Board of Scrutiny: Dr C. F Forsyth, R
Administrative Secretary (as normal deputy presiding officer in Regent House voting): Dr A. Clark, F

1.2 The terms of reference set by the Council were:

'To review voting arrangements conducted by ballot in the Regent House and the Senate and in particular to consider (after taking evidence) and report on:

(i) whether any changes should be made to the present STV arrangements in respect of elections;
(ii) the statutory and other provisions for voting on matters of policy and legislation, and in particular how possible amendments and alternatives to legislative and policy matters should be placed before the Regent House in order to obtain clear decisions'.

1.3 The Review Committee issued a call for evidence and received ten statements from members of the University. The Committee fully reviewed these statements and met Dr Galletly. The Committee are grateful to those who submitted evidence, a list of whom is given as Appendix A. (Most evidence may be obtained in hard copy from the Secretariat.)

1.4 A summary of conclusions and recommendations is in paragraph 8.

Principal problems to be resolved

2.1 The Review Committee started work in March 2004. The circumstances surrounding the appointment of the Committee, and the nature of the evidence received, quickly led to the conclusion that two main problems needed early resolution:

- the lack of clarity on the part of many voters about the methodology and impact of the system of STV used in University elections.
- the inadequacy of the arrangements for ensuring that legislative proposals are put before the voters in an easily comprehensible manner, particularly when a significant number of alternatives are put before the Regent House. The difficulty was especially apparent in voting upon Graces 5 and 6 of 20 November 2002.

The Committee's main conclusions

3.1 No evidence was put to the Committee that the method of STV currently in use in the University has proved other than generally satisfactory in practice, leading to results which have been accepted without controversy. However there is a general lack of understanding as to how it works. This should be rectified, particularly by better information on voting papers. See sections 4 and 5.

3.2 On the other hand the Ordinances which govern voting on legislative issues have proved inadequate, leading to the possibility of confusion and, at worst, the risk of perverse results. These Ordinances need urgent amendment so that the Vice-Chancellor is empowered to ensure that issues are put to the electorate clearly and coherently. See sections 6 and 7.

3.3 A fuller summary of the Committee's recommendations is in paragraph 8.

Single Transferable Vote (STV)

Current arrangements

4.1 The University uses for all voting (elections to the Council and other bodies, and voting on legislation and policy) an up to date version of the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system, set out in Statutes and Ordinances, p. 124. This uses a mathematical quota which delivers election or approval to a candidate or proposition with, by original voting, or by the transfer of votes according to voters' expressed preferences, the support of just more than a specified proportion of the votes in play (for one place to be filled or one proposition half; for two, one third; for three, one quarter; and so on). The effect of the use of this rule is to permit the election or approval of candidates or propositions which have significant minority support. The rules normally operate so that all continuing preferences of an elected candidate are transferred (proportionally if necessary), and similarly that continuing preferences attributed to an unelected candidate are distributed.

4.2 STV has proved to be an uncontroversial system for the conduct of elections to offices in which one or more vacancies are to be filled, in that the results of elections have not been challenged. It has a tendency to produce elected candidates each with a significant body of support in the electorate, and this has been advantageous in elections within the University, to such bodies as the University Council. Nor is there any evidence that this method of voting has caused difficulty in relation to decisions on legislative issues.

4.3 Nevertheless, it was clear from evidence put before the Committee that the workings of the system could be better explained. This should be remedied through better information. The Committee suggest that voting papers should carry a short explanation on these lines:

'You have one vote in each class. Votes are counted under the Single Transferable Vote Regulations, which provide for the election of a candidate who receives an arithmetically calculated quota of votes, and if no candidate has achieved the quota for the votes attributed to other candidates to be sequentially distributed until a quota is achieved. If a candidate is elected by achieving a quota his or her surplus votes are normally distributed proportionately among the continuing candidates.'

The various voting systems

5.1 Some members of the University believe that other voting systems would bring improvements. The Committee received a number of suggestions that the University should adopt new rules, in place of STV. There was also a suggestion that STV should continue to be used for elections (for the reasons stated in paragraph 4.2 above) but that new rules should be adopted for voting on legislation and policy. Strong advice was also given that the University should not make changes which led to voting being more complicated that at present.

5.2 The main family of rules which were put forward to the Committee for discussion as a preferable alternative were the Condorcet rules, which, like STV, require voters to rank alternatives before them. Counting, however is different, in that under Condorcet less acceptable paired alternatives are successively excluded to produce a result which tends to have the largest body of support. The tendency of Condorcet is therefore different from STV. As indicated above, the latter would tend to reflect different ranges of opinion, and is therefore especially valuable in a self-governing organisation such as the University. Condorcet, however, would tend to produce consensual results, in that the conclusion tends to be support for the proposition which has the broadest support, even though other propositions may have majority support.

5.3 The Committee gave serious consideration to the various suggestions put forward, and discussed the relative merits of the various systems proposed with those who had made the most detailed proposals. A summary of considerations about the various voting systems is at Appendix B.

5.4 In reaching their conclusion the Committee were concerned to ensure that the system selected should combine simplicity of operation with clarity on the part of voters. They agreed with those who argued that no change should be made which led to voting being more complicated than at present. With this in mind they concluded that it would be inadvisable to introduce change unless this could be clearly demonstrated to bring significant improvement. They remained unconvinced that any of the alternative systems put to them would bring any such improvement.

5.5 The Committee also considered the possibility of using different systems for different types of election. They concluded that while this might be possible in practice, it would be undesirable in principle. They took the view that the same voting system should apply to all types of election, whether principal regular elections to office, bye-elections, or legislative elections.

5.6 It was also clear to the Committee that there is some confusion about the methodology of the STV system currently in use. This should be rectified through use of a clear voting paper. A dummy voting paper for a Council election is given as Appendix E.

5.7 The principal conclusion of the Committee about voting systems is therefore:

- the current system of STV should continue to be used in all voting, whether in elections or on decisions about policy and legislation. The Cambridge STV system is up-to-date (and in accordance with the best practice approved by the Electoral Reform Society) and does not require amendment, but a simple explanation of the operation of the system should be included on voting papers.

5.8 Electronic voting. The Review Committee were also asked to consider electronic voting and electronic counting. Sufficient security arrangements are not at present in place to permit secure electronic voting in the Regent House. Electronic counting is a matter for the presiding officer.

5.9 Other issues. The Committee considered two other issues:

(a) A suggestion was made to the Committee that voting in elections with small numbers of candidates and a small electorate (for example, election to membership of Faculty boards) might more conveniently be conducted by first past the post than STV. The Committee do not believe that it would be appropriate to adopt different voting rules just because the electorate is small; and the definition of 'small' would be arbitrary.
(b) The Committee noted that voting in the Senate (which is very occasional, in person, and for with the election of the Chancellor or the High Steward) is also conducted under STV. The Review Committee advise that the officers ensure that arrangements are in place, should a contested election take place, especially so that the right to vote of members of the Senate who are not members of the Regent House can be efficiently checked at the time of voting.

Legislative Proposals

6.1 The difficulties which have arisen in relation to legislative proposals stem not from the use of STV, but rather from the requirement to vote either on alternatives, and/or on amendments which are set out in an unstructured, indeed, incoherent, manner. The provision for amendments is relatively recent, having been introduced following the Report of the Wass Syndicate in 1989. Recent events, and particularly the 2002-03 vote mentioned in paragraph 6.12 below, have demonstrated that present arrangements for placing issues before voters are unsatisfactory: specifically the University's arrangements for defining the questions to be voted on are inadequate.

6.2 These arrangements are set out in the regulations for the conduct of business (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 115). In accordance with these, a Grace is deemed to be approved by a certain time unless before then it has been withdrawn by the Vice-Chancellor; or the Council have given notice that a vote is to be take on it; or a request has been made by the Vice-Chancellor for a vote to be taken on it; or a proposal has been received by the Vice-Chancellor for amendment.

6.3 The Vice-Chancellor has power by Statute (Statute A, VIII, 8) in respect of Graces and amendments to Graces initiated by members of the Regent House, 'to rule inadmissible any Grace or amendment which directly concerns a particular person,' and has such further powers as are specified by Ordinance. The relevant Ordinance (Regulation 11, Statutes and Ordinances, p. 116) provides:

'(a) If in the opinion of the Vice Chancellor a proposed amendment is in substance and effect incompatible with the main purpose of the Grace to which it refers, the Vice-Chancellor may rule the amendment inadmissible. The proposers of such an amendment shall be deemed to have requested that a vote be taken on the Grace with Regulation 8 above.
(b) If two or more amendments have been proposed which in the opinion of the Vice-Chancellor are substantially similar in effect the Vice-Chancellor may select one of the amendments for submission to the Regent House and may rule the other or others inadmissible.'

6.4 These provisions are complicated, but do not sufficiently enable the Vice-Chancellor, as presiding officer for voting, to determine the presentation of material for the convenience of voters. The Vice-Chancellor needs the normal power of a presiding officer in this regard, and the Ordinance should be amended accordingly. We so recommend.

6.5 Withdrawal. The Vice-Chancellor can now only withdraw a Grace for reconsideration up to the time when it would be approved if a vote or amendment had not been called. This is not necessarily enough time for the Vice-Chancellor to act if amendments are put (because sometimes the best course is to withdraw the whole Grace for reconsideration). The procedure should be amended accordingly. The Committee suggest a limit of three weeks from submission (if a vote on a Grace is called for or if amendments are proposed).

6.6 Clear presentation of propositions. The Vice-Chancellor's authority to organise the presentation of propositions to help voters is also insufficient. Provision should be made that the Vice-Chancellor may decide that a vote should be taken between propositions that a Grace be left unamended, or that it be substituted by one or more of the alternative forms as may be determined to reflect the amendment or amendments proposed. Some times a second Grace, or second ballot, would be needed to confirm the result of such voting (or to make other provision), but not always. For example, in the illustration (paragraph 6.12 and Appendix D) five propositions could have been implemented immediately, but a sixth would have required a subsequent procedural vote (for the amendment of a Statute).

6.7 Trivial or immaterial amendments. The Vice-Chancellor is also at present unable to rule out amendments which are trivial or immaterial. Provision should be made to enable the Vice-Chancellor to do this.

6.8 Incompatible amendments. If an amendment is incompatible with the main purpose of the Grace, the Vice-Chancellor should have the power to exclude it (as at present) or to separate the proposition for individual voting or to advise the Council to treat it as a Grace initiated by members of the Regent House, for separate consideration and if necessary voting.

6.9 Separation of propositions. The Vice-Chancellor should have clear power, where an amendment comprises one or more separate propositions, to separate these, so that the voting can be straightforward.

6.10 These changes would enable the Vice-Chancellor to present propositions for voting clearly, and, except where there was a straightforward suite of alternatives, usually to present propositions in a form requiring the answer 'yes' or 'no'. In order to achieve this, amendments of Ordinance would be necessary.

6.11 The Committee recommends that:

- the draft amendments of Ordinance set out in Appendix C are considered and adopted; they are designed to enable the Vice-Chancellor as presiding officer to ensure that Graces and amendments are put before the voters in a clear and coherent manner, that duplication, anomalies, and contradictions are eliminated, and that where necessary individual propositions are voted on separately; these are the normal responsibilities of a presiding officer.

6.12 An illustration. In order to illustrate the operation of the procedures recommended by the Review Committee, an illustration of how voting would have been organised on two of the controversial governance Graces and amendments is given in Appendix D.

Constitutional Conventions and Undertakings: Straw Voting

7.1 It is important that formal requirement and procedures as stated in the Statutes and Ordinances are implemented properly by all concerned with due regard to the interests of the University. The conventions and understandings which surround good governance are not always capable of being stated in formal constitutional documents, but it is important that members of the Regent House, and the Council, are able to discharge their respective responsibilities in circumstances of trust.

7.2 The Committee have noted the important statements of intention issued by the Council and General Board when the post-Wass reforms were implemented (printed in Statutes and Ordinances, pp. 121 and 123). These read as follows:

Notice by the Council

Statement of intention

In carrying out their functions as the principal executive and policy-making body of the University the Council will consult the Regent House on questions of policy which in the Council's judgement are likely to prove controversial. They will do this by submitting a Grace to the Regent House for the approval of a provisional decision or statement of intention; where appropriate, such a Grace will allow for the expression of a preference between alternative options. The Council will give consideration to remarks made at any Discussion of such matters and to the outcome of any vote on them.

Notice by the General Board

Statement of intention

In considering any proposal for enacting or amending any Ordinance in pursuance of their powers under Statute C, I, 2, the General Board will consult other University bodies as appropriate. If in the course of such consultation the Board become aware that the matter is likely to prove controversial, they will also consult the Regent House by initiating a Grace enabling the Regent House to express an opinion on the proposed change. The Board will give consideration to remarks made at any Discussion of such matters and to the outcome of any vote on them.

These are statements of intention, and are not Ordinances approved by Grace. Indeed, in some respects they could not be given the force of an Ordinance, because that would be incompatible with the statutory responsibilities, obligations, and authority of the Council and the Board. The statements of intention are, however, important statements of how the Council and the Board approach controversial business and could usefully be incorporated into the Standing Orders of both bodies. The Committee so recommend.

8. Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations

(a) STV should continue to be used in University voting, whether in elections or on decisions about policy and legislation. The Cambridge STV scheme has worked satisfactorily in practice and does not require amendment, but a simple explanation of the operation of STV should be included on voting papers.
(b) The Ordinances should be amended to give the Vice-Chancellor the normal power of presiding officer, along the lines of Appendix C. In particular, the regulations for the conduct of business should enable the Vice-Chancellor to withdraw a contested Grace at a later stage than at present. The Vice-Chancellor should also be authorised to put the propositions to the Regent House in a form which enables voters to decide easily on a series of simple propositions, especially by the Vice-Chancellor being authorised to separate propositions put forward. The Vice-Chancellor should be authorised to rule out amendments which are immaterial of trivial. The Vice-Chancellor should be authorised to rule amendments which are incompatible with the main purposes of the Grace in question or to refer the matter in question to the Council for separate submission as a Grace.
(c) The Council's and the General Board's statements of intention about University business (Statutes and Ordinances, pp. 121 and 123) should be incorporated into the Standing Orders of each body.
(d) The officers should review voting arrangements for the Senate, especially as to the verification of entitlement to vote.
(e) Sufficient security arrangements are not at present in place to permit secure electronic voting in the Regent House.

VERONICA SUTHERLAND

19 July 2004

Appendices

Appendix A: Evidence received.

Appendix B: Voting systems.

Appendix C: Draft amendments of Ordinance.

Appendix D: Illustration of revised procedures.

Appendix E: Dummy STV voting paper for a Council election.

APPENDIX A

Evidence Received

The Committee is grateful for the evidence received from the following:

The Proctors

The University Draftsman

Dr N. Dodgson

Professor A. W. F. Edwards

Professor G. R. Evans

Dr D. Galletly

Dr D. R de Lacey

Dr N. Maclaren

Dr J. S. Myers

Professor T. J. Smiley

APPENDIX B

Voting Systems

There is no ideal voting system. All systems have advantages and disadvantages. The present voting system mainly used within the University is Single Transferable Vote.

This appendix describes the main features of various voting systems, and summarises their advantages and disadvantages.

First past the post - or X past the post in X vacancy elections

Delivers election to the candidates with the biggest vote or votes, without regard to the position of minorities, however significant. Can produce seriously skewed results in the case of voting to several categories on a single body, such as the University Council. It is simple to count.

Variants include systems where the voter has as many votes as the number of vacancies, or, in the case of multiple vacancy a somewhat smaller number. These variants have broadly the same advantages and disadvantages.

Single Transferable Vote

As used in Cambridge, operates normally according to the achievement of a quota of votes related to the number of places to be filled, and transfers the surplus above that quota of an elected candidate to remaining candidates, proportionally, or transfers the votes of excluded candidates (if no candidate has a surplus) to other candidates until places are filled. STV has a tendency to permit, if the electorate so determine, representation of minority as well as majority opinion. It is for this reason that it is regarded as particularly suitable for the election of a representative body such as the University Council. It is relatively easy for voters to use (they order the candidates until they have no remaining difference of preference); but it can be complicated to count.

It is strongly recommended by the Electoral Reform Society.

Condorcet rules

For the voter action is the same as for STV. The votes are counted differently, however, with the successive exclusion of least popular pair-wise combinations, with the result that the options elected carry the broadest support, but may not be those with the strongest separate support. It can be complicated to count.

STV versus Condorcet

It was put to the Review Committee, that STV is particularly suitable in voting in elections for representative bodies, such as the University Council, where it is desirable to represent different strands of opinion, and that Condorcet is particularly useful in voting on policy matters where it is desirable that the result should be one of broad consensus, rather than of representing the largest single body of opinion. While this assessment of STV does indeed seem applicable to University circumstances, it is not necessarily the case that the best policy or legislative solution would be achieved consensually, and the case for adopting Condorcet rules is not, therefore, made out on that account.

Supplementary vote

The supplementary vote voters give a first choice and a second choice. If first preferences lead to one candidate getting fifty per cent of the vote he or she is elected. If no candidate reaches fifty per cent of the vote the two highest scoring candidates are retained and the rest eliminated. The second preference on the ballot papers of eliminated candidates are examined and the votes transferred to the two remaining candidates. This is a primitive version of STV.

The alternative vote

In such a system, candidates rank their preferences as for STV, and until a candidate achieves fifty percent of the vote candidates at the bottom of the poll are excluded and their votes redistributed. This is a majoritarian rather than a proportional system. It would seem to over-represent majorities, and under-represent minorities.

Weighted vote

In such systems voters allocate points for candidates (e.g. for four places to be filled 4 (or n, a smaller number) for their first choice, 3 (or n-1) for their second choice, 2 (or n-2) for their third and 1 (or n-3) for their fourth. Points are aggregated and the candidates with the most points are elected. This is a weighted first (or x) past the post system and seems likely to under-represent minority opinion, compared to many other proportional systems.

APPENDIX C

Suggested amendments to the regulations for Graces and Congregations of the Regent House

Proposed amendments are indicated in bold type.

6. A Grace may be withdrawn by the Vice-Chancellor (i) at any time before the hour specified in Regulation 5 for its approval, and (i) if voting is requested (Regulation 5(c)) or (ii) if amendment is proposed (Regulation 5(d)), within three weeks after the day of its submission. Withdrawal of a Grace under this regulation shall be announced by means of a Notice posted outside the Senate-House and subsequently published.

7. The Council shall have power to determine that a vote shall be taken by ballot on any Grace. Notice of such a ballot shall be published in the Reporter when the Grace is submitted.

8. Any twenty-five members of the Regent House may submit a written request to the Vice-Chancellor for a vote to be taken on a Grace by ballot. If such a request is received by the Vice-Chancellor before the hour specified in Regulation 5 for the approval of the Grace, a ballot shall be held in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 13, unless the Grace is withdrawn under Regulation 6.

9. A written proposal for the amendment of a Grace which has been submitted to the Regent House may be initiated by members of the Regent House in accordance with Statute A, VIII, 7, provided that the proposal is received by the Vice-Chancellor before the hour specified in Regulation 5 for the approval of the Grace or, if a request for a ballot on the Grace has been received, within one week of the date on which a Notice of the request has been published under Regulation 10 below. In that event, and subject to the provisions of Statute A, VIII, 9 and of Regulation 11 below, a vote shall be taken by ballot, using the procedure prescribed in the Single Transferable Vote regulations; the options to be voted on shall include (a) approval of the proposal contained in the Grace as submitted to the Regent House, (b) rejection of the proposal, (c) approval of alternative proposals formulated in accordance with the amendment or amendments proposed, and may include (d) any further alternative proposal which may be formulated by the Council. Provided that the Vice-Chancellor may instead decide that a vote shall be taken by ballot, using the procedure prescribed in the Single Transferable Vote regulations, between propositions that the Grace be left unamended or that it be substituted by one of such one or more alternative forms as may be determined by the Vice-Chancellor to reflect the amendment or amendments proposed.

10. If a request for voting is received under Regulation 8, or if a proposal for the amendment of a Grace is received under Regulation 9, the Vice-Chancellor shall give notice accordingly by means of a Notice posted outside the Senate-House and subsequently published. The Notice shall include the names of the persons who have requested the ballot or who have proposed the amendment, as the case may be.

11. The Vice-Chancellor shall have the following powers in respect of proposals initiated under Regulation 9 for the amendment of a Grace:

(a) If in the opinion of the Vice-Chancellor a proposed amendment is in substance and effect incompatible with the main purpose of the Grace to which it refers, or immaterial to that purpose, the Vice-Chancellor may rule the amendment inadmissible, or may refer it to the Council for subsequent separate submission as a Grace. The proposers of such an amendment shall be deemed to have requested that a vote be taken on the Grace in accordance with Regulation 8 above.
(b) If two or more amendments have been proposed which in the opinion of the Vice-Chancellor are substantially similar in effect the Vice-Chancellor may select one of the amendments for submission to the Regent House and may rule the other or others inadmissible.
(c) The Vice-Chancellor shall have authority to determine the form in which the various propositions are set out in the voting papers; without prejudice to the generality of that power (i) if in the opinion of the Vice-Chancellor a proposed amendment comprises two or more separable propositions, the Vice-Chancellor may treat the amendment as if it were a number of amendments, each comprising one or more of those propositions as the Vice-Chancellor may determine; and (ii) the Vice-Chancellor may determine that votes shall be taken on propositions as if they were separate Graces, each such Grace being treated for all purposes as if it were the Grace as originally submitted. The Vice-Chancellor shall if necessary indicate in the voting papers (i) whether the result of voting is effective without a further Grace (by rescinding or amending a Statute, Ordinance or Order, or otherwise) or (ii) whether a further Grace would be needed to implement the result of voting. In the case of an indication under (i) the decision shall be effective from such date as is indicated by the Vice-Chancellor in the voting paper and in case of an indication under (ii) the result of voting shall be referred to the Council for the sanction of a further Grace or Graces to be considered by the Council.

12. If a ballot is to be held under any of Regulations 7-9, the arrangements for voting shall be determined by the Vice-Chancellor, subject to the provisions of Regulation 13, and shall be published in the Reporter.

13. A ballot on a Grace of the Regent House, or a ballot held under the provisions of Regulation 9 above, shall be conducted by post. Voting-papers shall be distributed to all members of the Regent House not later than a day appointed by the Vice-Chancellor, which shall be neither less than fourteen days nor normally more than twenty-eight days of term after the publication of the Notice announcing the ballot; provided that the Vice-Chancellor shall have power to postpone the distribution until a date not later than eighty days of term after the publication of the Notice. The Vice-Chancellor shall give public notice of the day for the distribution of voting-papers and of the latest time for their return, which shall be not earlier than the tenth day after the day appointed for distribution.

14. When a ballot is held in accordance with the preceding regulations, the presiding officer shall be the Vice-Chancellor or a duly appointed deputy. The presiding officer shall

(a) arrange for the counting of the votes as soon as possible after the conclusion of the voting;
(b) decide upon the validity of any doubtful vote;
(c) declare the result as soon as the counting of the votes is completed.

If there is an equality of votes, the Grace or amendment shall be deemed not to be approved. The result of a ballot shall be announced by means of a Notice posted outside the Senate-House and subsequently published.

15. If an obvious or immaterial error occurs in the published form of a Grace or amendment, the Vice-Chancellor may announce a correction by means of a Notice published in the Reporter and for the purpose of Regulation 5 or Regulation 9, as the case may be, the Grace or amendment shall be deemed to have been submitted in its corrected form.

APPENDIX D

Illustration of revised procedures

This illustration refers to business submitted to the Regent House in Michaelmas Term 2002: voting on Graces 5 and 6 of 20 November 2002. Originally these Graces read as follows:

5. That the regulations for Discussions be amended in accordance with the result of voting in relation to the options set out below:

Regulation 1(b).

By replacing in line one the words 'ten members' by the words 'twenty-five members' (Option 1) or 'fifty members' (Option 2).

6. That the regulations for Graces and Congregations of the Regent House be amended in accordance with the result of voting in relation to the options set out below:

Regulation 8 (call for a ballot).

By replacing in line one the words 'ten members' by the words 'twenty-five members' (Option 1) or 'fifty members' (Option 2).

Regulation 9 (amendments).

By replacing in line one the words 'ten members' by the words 'twenty-five members' (Option 1) or 'fifty members' (Option 2).

Amendments were subsequently proposed, with result that the Graces then read as follows:

5. That the regulations for Discussions be amended in accordance with the result of voting in relation to the options set out below:

Regulation 1(b).

By replacing in line one the words 'ten members' by the words 'twenty-five' (Option 1) or 'fifty members' (Option 2).

(v) By replacing the words 'submit a written request' by the words 'submit a request on paper, by fax or by electronic mail from addresses within the cam.ac.uk domain'

6. That the regulations for Graces and Congregations of the Regent House be amended in accordance with the result of voting in relation to the options set out below:

Regulation 8 (call for a ballot).

By replacing in line one the words 'ten members' by the words 'twenty-five members' (Option 1) or 'fifty members' (Option 2).

(vi) By replacing the words 'submit a written request' by the words 'submit a request on paper, by fax or by electronic mail from addresses within the cam.ac.uk domain'.

Regulation 9 (amendments).

By replacing in line one the words 'ten members' by the words 'twenty-five members' (Option 1) or 'fifty members' (Option 2).

(vii) By replacing the words 'submit a written request' by the words 'submit a request on paper, by fax or electronic mail from addresses within the cam.ac.uk domain'.

The result was a rather complex process of voting, the results of which are set out in the Reporter (2002-03, pp. 543-4).

Voting under the new arrangements if adopted

The following is the outline of a voting paper which could have been issued if the Vice-Chancellor had taken certain decisions under the new procedures proposed by the Review Committee:

UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

REGENT HOUSE: VOTING ON GRACES 5 AND 6 OF 20 NOVEMBER 2002 (Discussions, Ballots, Amendments)

The following questions are submitted to the Regent House. The questions put are similar for the three procedures (Discussions, Ballots, Amendments), but you do not have to vote the same way for each. The Council's advice is given in their fly-sheet. Other arguments are given in the fly-sheets and the paper proposing amendments.

Discussions

1. The number of signatures required to call a Discussion. Number the options 1, 2, or 3 according to your preference. The preferences will be counted under the STV regulations.

10 
25 
50 

2. The method of expressing a signature requesting a Discussion. Should fax and e-mail signatures be accepted as well as signatures in writing on paper? Tick your choice, if any.

YES 
NO 

Ballots: Requests for voting on a Grace

3. The number of signatures required to request voting on a Grace. Number 1, 2, or 3 according to your preference. Preferences will be counted under the STV regulations.

10 
25 
50 

4. The method of expressing a signature requesting voting on a Grace. Should fax and e-mail signatures be accepted as well as signatures in writing on paper? Tick your choice, if any.

YES 
NO 

Amendments to Graces

5. The number of signatures required to call for an amendment to a Grace. Number 1, 2, or 3 according to your preference. Preferences will be counted under the STV regulations.

10 
25 
50 

6. The method of expressing a signature proposing an amendment to a Grace. Should fax and e-mail signatures be accepted as well as signatures in writing on paper? Tick your choice, if any.

YES 
NO 

Implementation of the results of this vote

Ordinances will be amended immediately (by amending the number of signatures required, or by amending the phrase 'submit a written request' to read 'submit a request on paper, by fax or by electronic mail from addresses within the cam.ac.uk domain') in respect of propositions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6.

Proposition 5, however, if a change from the present position was supported, would require an amendment of Statute and a separate Grace would be put forward in due course to amend the Statute concerned (Statute A, VIII, 7) and any Ordinances affected.

APPENDIX E

DUMMY STV VOTING PAPER FOR ELECTIONS TO THE UNIVERSITY COUNCIL

UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

University Council: Election of members in classes (a), (b), and (c): December 20XX

You have one vote in each class. Votes are counted under the Single Transferable Vote Regulations, which provide for the election of a candidate who receives an arithmetically calculated quota of votes, and if no candidate has achieved the quota for the votes attributed to other candidates to be sequentially distributed until a quota is achieved. If a candidate is elected by achieving a quota his or her surplus votes are normally distributed proportionately among the continuing candidates.

Class (a)

Heads of Colleges. Two places to be filled

The candidates are:

A
B
C

Write your order of preference below

Preference 1 
Preference 2 
Preference 3 

Class (b)

Professors and Readers. Two places to be filled

The candidates are:

D
E
F
G

Write your order of preference below.

Preference 1 
Preference 2 
Preference 3 
Preference 4 

Class (c)

Other members of the Regent House. Four places to be filled

The candidates are:

H
I
J
K
L
M
N

Write your order of preference below.

Preference 1 
Preference 2 
Preference 3 
Preference 4 
Preference 5 
Preference 6 
Preference 7 

< Previous page ^ Table of Contents Next page >

Cambridge University Reporter 11 August 2004
Copyright © 2011 The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.