New Method for Votes to be Introduced at 2015 General Conference Session
By AT News Team, Feb. 5, 2015: Delegates to the Seventh-day Adventist denomination’s General Conference (GC) Session in July won’t hold up yellow cards to vote as they did five years ago at the last meeting. Instead, for the first time, delegates will vote by pressing a button on an electronic device.
The new method will tally votes immediately and display the results in a bar chart on a screen. The technology will provide greater accuracy and assure a secret ballot, perhaps relieving the concern that some delegates may be pressured to vote a certain way.
At the 1990 and 1995 GC sessions observers reported that some entire delegations all voted the same way and rumors circulated that delegates had been told they must support a specific view. The same controversial issues about ordination and the role of women in the church will be on the agenda again this year.
The GC Session is the top governing body in the denomination. It meets once every five years to elect the top denominational officials, as well as consider amendments to the three most important documents in the organization; the bylaws, the Statement of Fundamental Beliefs and the Church Manual. It does not make policy or financial decisions, but other issues can be placed before the delegates by vote of the GC executive committee.
“Technology impacts our lives in many ways, and we’re continually looking for ways in which technology can improve our systems,” the Adventist News Network (ANN) quoted Pastor Myron Iseminger, undersecretary of the denomination.
Iseminger, who has worked as a church administrator in several regions of the world, told ANN the electronic system will also help people from cultures who face tension between following their convictions and following their regional leader. “I think in many cultures delegates are caught in a difficult spot because, on one hand, we encourage them to prayerfully vote their conscience, but on the other hand, showing respect to their local leader sitting nearby is also very important,” Iseminger said. “We hope that particular pressure will be removed this time. We want to be transparent and fair, and I think this is a great step forward.”
Denominational officials will rent several thousand remote voting devices from a company that will also administer the process. The denomination’s Inter-American Division, based in Miami and including the Caribbean basin, is acquiring its own voting system. The annual meeting of the GC executive committee has used electronic voting for a number of years which has given the denomination’s Secretariat some experience with this type of technology. Some conference constituency meetings have also used electronic voting.
Pastor Max Torkelsen, president of the North Pacific Union Conference in the United States, told ANN that he has been involved in denominational meetings where electronic voting was used since the late 1990s. The transition away from voting cards and voice votes led to more “credibility” of the process he said, particularly for people who voted against an item that passed. “They know their vote was counted. It raises people’s level of confidence [about] the vote,” he said.
All of the sources that Adventist Today contacted declined to speculate about the possibility that technology could be used to hijack the vote on a particularly controversial and important item. Some individuals and independent groups have expressed very strong feelings about the question on ordination that has been referred to the 2015 GC Session, although most of these will not have delegate credentials and some are not members of the denomination.
The upcoming session begins July 2 and runs through July 11 in San Antonio, Texas. About 2,600 voting delegates will attend as well as perhaps as many as 50,000 observers. Adventist Today will publish a special issue of its magazine in advance of the session with background information on the various issues on the agenda, the procedures used in handling denominational business, etc.
05 February 2015 @ 12:01 pm
Similar to a secret ballot, this technology may increase the likelihood of results that reflect the conscience of the voters. As Iseminger suggested, electronic voting can help ease the peer pressure and superior pressure that some delegates may feel. I think it’s a good idea.
06 February 2015 @ 8:51 pm
Well-spoken, Elizabeth.
07 February 2015 @ 3:33 am
IF PEOPLE DO NOT REALISE THAT AS DELEGATE, THEIR DUTY IS TO stand for truth regardless of who is around, then the wrong person was chosen. Many of us are just spineless wonders and even in a church setting cannot stand for truth. God’s way is open and honest and from the time we began to operate in secret, we were in the devil’s territory. The trouble is, we persist in it at all times to the detriment of the church. Each man should be apprised of his responsibility to make BIBLICAL decisions and stand alone in doing so.
07 February 2015 @ 11:35 am
What about lots that were thrown for decisions? That ws very secretive.
09 February 2015 @ 4:42 am
What is so ‘secretive’ about casting lots? All gathered beheld the casting of the lot and its result with their own eyes. There was absolutely nothing secretive about it. Let us not attempt to grasp at straws which do not exist simply because we disagree with an idea.
Patricia is correct. Jesus was clear about transparence. He did not thing in secret. And if the delegates have no moral fibre and are able to be pressured and influenced simply because of a higher administrator’s position and favor, then these should be removed as they have failed the call for “men who cannot be bought or sold.” If we cannot vote openly with honesty, then any vote cast will bring harm to the global body.
07 February 2015 @ 3:38 am
The greatest want of the world [and the church]is a want of men; men who will not be bought or sold; men who are as true to duty as the needle is to the pole; men who will stand for truth though the heaven’s fall. Sis. White. She was sooo right!!
07 February 2015 @ 6:34 pm
Doesn’t this “greatest want of the world” speech come from Rudyard Kipling (sp?)??? Not EGW.
08 February 2015 @ 3:54 pm
Mr. Litchfield is absolutely correct. At least, EGW or, more correctly, her editors were reading good literature at that time and “borrowing” good quotes.
08 February 2015 @ 8:14 pm
It is very rarely that Dr. Taylor will say that something is “absolutely correct.” So the onus is on him to prove that Rudyard Kipling said all the words in this “greatest want of the world” quote. Mr. Litchfield’s guessing on something like this should also be put to the test. Prove it sirs…that “Kipling” was the original author of the words quoted and that EGW’s “editors” “borrowed” from Kipling. As you are both so sure of this, it is very likely something that is very easy to prove. No?
07 February 2015 @ 10:10 am
Great News that this will be used ! I have be a participant with this method at several national meetings and this works great.
This will reduce the appearance of a delegate being cohearsted by others to vote a “certain” way and vote their “heart” on matters that will have great importance on the world-wide church. There will always be individuals / groups that are unhappy with the decision made, but we ALL will follow what WE as individuals believe is RIGHT and JUST !
07 February 2015 @ 6:47 pm
It is about time! An e-voting system has been used for many years by the US House of Representatives,and it only has 435 voting members.
However, the US Senate, with 100 members does not use e-voting. (I think Senate still has ceremonial brass spittoons; not needed for GC session, however.)
07 February 2015 @ 9:28 pm
Maybe each vote will be traceable to an individual and a record kept? Is there a reliable guarantee that this won’t happen? Will delegates trust it?
07 February 2015 @ 10:16 pm
The prospective delegates should be allowed to make the decision on whether this form of voting should be used: 1] after they are fully briefed on the voting procedure, 2] how it works, and 3]making sure they know how to use the voting devices correctly. If this new e-vote process has delegates inadvertently making mistakes when voting takes place or leaving them confused for whatever reason, it will not be worth their while using this method.
If the delegates aren’t allowed to decide, then Administrators should make pretty sure that the three points made above are properly carried out. The last thing we would want is to have the voting turn out to be a farce.
08 February 2015 @ 8:46 am
Are the hackers done with their work yet? … LOL
09 February 2015 @ 5:00 am
The problem is not an eventually glitch of electronic devices, but the way the GC delegates are chosen.