This is a thread for member statements submitted for consideration of the " Amendment to Resolution 2025-04-GR01: To Poll Membership on Delegate Election Voting Method" debated at the May 2025 General Body Meeting.
Statement AGAINST by Julia P.
The proposal to conduct a straw poll of members in good standing via the Weekly Update newsletter as opposed to OpaVote frustrates the base resolution’s goal of soliciting representative input from the general body and chips away at the well-established administrative structures that keep our chapter running.
This method undermines the apparent legitimacy of the poll by distributing it through a platform not generally used to conduct votes. Engaged chapter members are used to voting via OpaVote, so when the poll link appears in their inbox, they will already be primed to engage and to answer with intention. Part of the base resolution’s aim is to encourage members to think seriously on an esoteric issue - for many members, this may be the first time they’ve ever engaged with the topic of voting methods. For our internal democracy to thrive, it’s important that members take the responsibility of voting seriously, even if the vote is non-binding. It is therefore incumbent on us to create and maintain structures that encourage members to educate themselves, think critically, and cast their ballots thoughtfully. The supporters of this amendment have argued that because OpaVote is generally used for binding votes, it is not an appropriate platform for a straw poll, but I respectfully disagree. It is that very fact which gives the platform its implicit officiality and thereby incentivizes members not only to participate but to think hard on their answers before submitting their ballots, meaning responses will be more representative of members’ fully developed thoughts. A poll distributed in the Weekly Update will not convey the same sense of importance and seriousness, nor will it come with the same sense of civic responsibility to participate.
Further, I have concerns about the implications for our chapter’s internal administrative structures if the responsibility of distributing ballots, even for non-binding votes, is delegated to a body other than the Steering Committee and the Administrative Committee (AdCom), particularly a body such as a working group which operates without direct oversight. The members of the Publications Working Group, which produces and distributes the Weekly Update, were not elected by the general body to facilitate the administrative functions and democratic processes of the chapter and therefore cannot legitimately claim authority over this role as it suits them. This work is centralized within Steering and AdCom (which is overseen by and directly answerable to Steering) in order to relieve working groups of burdensome and logistically demanding tasks and to ensure that these tasks are performed in accordance with democratic norms. Setting the precedent that chapter-wide democratic processes can be conducted by working groups on an ad hoc basis would disrupt the reliable structures upon which the functionality of our chapter relies and create confusion among members as to which chapter formations can speak and act with overarching administrative authority. Deciding who performs the tasks that Steering was elected to perform should not be a game of musical chairs. Our chapter operates best when the division of responsibility between elected chapter leadership and essentially autonomous working groups remains clear.
Finally, I am confused as to why the supporters of this amendment argued during debate at the April 6 General Body Meeting that chapter members should vote yes on their amendment, then vote down the base resolution. If one were proposing an amendment such as this in good faith, it would make logical sense that one’s goal in so doing would be to pass an amended version of the base resolution, not vote it down entirely. The fact that this is, per their own statements, not their goal makes me question why they bothered submitting an amendment in the first place rather than simply opposing the base resolution. The point was raised during debate and subsequently on Slack that the cost of distributing the poll via OpaVote (around $160.00) would be unreasonably burdensome on the chapter and that these funds could be better used towards external campaigns, and while I agree that our most important fights are external, I find this argument spurious given that the comrades making it have incurred the same cost by proposing an amendment which they apparently hope to see fail. Supporters of this amendment further contend that taking multiple votes on a given issue, particularly when one of these votes is non-binding and serves the primary purpose of political education and data gathering, is overly bureaucratic and a waste of chapter members’ time. Bureaucracy can indeed be frustrating, but to pay lip service to the idea of democracy while scoffing at the idea of polling membership and voting more than once on salient issues is to talk out of both sides of one’s mouth, and again, they could easily have saved us one of these apparently onerous votes by declining to propose an amendment and arguing against the resolution as written.
I encourage all comrades to vote NO on this amendment. The process it proposes constitutes an inappropriate use of chapter resources that runs contra to our tried and true administrative structures and disrupts democracy by creating confusion for members and presenting the poll as essentially unserious. The fact that apparently even its own advocates do not wish to see this process carried out tells us all we need to know.
Statement IN FAVOR by Kyle T.
As a DSA member without a caucus, I found the discussion around this resolution to be irritating. There are clearly factional disputes being played out for political purposes with arguments under the guise of “security” or “click-rates” or various other specious statements that made it difficult to actually understand this amendment. I think it’s both an insult to the intelligence of the membership to use such disingenuous arguments for political purposes rather than engaging in open, honest, and comradely debate. Moreover, it seems wasteful to spend $160 on a tool when another application has the same utility at no cost.
I am strongly in favor of this amendment.
Statement AGAINST by Kenneth B.
Comrades, I’m writing today to urge you all to vote AGAINST this amendment. The key change made by this amendment would change the tool used to conduct the poll from OpaVote, a secure and anonymous platform used regularly by the chapter, to an unspecified survey tool, such as a Google form, buried in the Weekly Update, a newsletter produced by a working group to which many chapter members may not even be subscribed. OpaVote is managed by the Steering Committee with the assistance of the Administrative Committee, both formations trusted to handle sensitive member data and fulfill administrative roles in the chapter, such as the administration of polls or surveys. Google forms or whatever other unknown tool the authors of the amendment would like to use would be privately managed and the real results only visible to an unknown and unelected member of the Publications Working Group, who may or may not have even passed our chapter vetting procedures to ensure member data remains in trusted hands, and the Steering Committee would still need to manually go through the poll results to ensure all answers were by chapter members in good standing, creating additional unnecessary administrative burden that would not exist with OpaVote. Additionally, OpaVote has been shown to have higher engagement and click throughs than the Weekly Update (6-8% clicks per link for OpaVote, 0.07-8% clicks per link for the update). Assuming the poll went out to approximately 2200 chapter members, and all of them opened the email, this would result in about 154 responses on OpaVote but only about 1.5 responses in the Update. Even assuming a more charitable clickthrough rate in the Weekly Update of 1.7%, which was the combined total clickthrough rate for the GBM RSVP and the STV Hare petition that went out in the last update, we could expect only about 37 responses to answer this poll in the update. It’s clear that OpaVote is a better tool to drive member engagement and responsiveness than a Google form buried in a newsletter.
Some proponents of the amendment also argued that OpaVote is simply too expensive to use for this poll. Putting aside for a moment that our chapter has ample funds to pay for these tools and services to facilitate our chapter’s democracy, I have to ask why they brought the amendment in the first place, given that voting on the amendment is just as expensive as sending out any other OpaVote ballot, and once an amendment is submitted it must be voted on (neither Roberts’ Rules of Order nor our Bylaws have a provision for a “friendly amendment” process by which amendments can be merged into resolutions with the consent of the authors, without needing a vote). If these comrades truly want to be such conservative stewards of our financial resources, why propose this amendment when they openly oppose the base resolution regardless of their amendment’s passage, as they explicitly stated during debate at our General Body Meeting? This does not strike me as a good faith attempt to improve a flaw or address a concern they have with the resolution, but rather a time and money wasting ploy to obstruct the underlying resolution and make this process more confusing and arduous for all chapter members.
Finally, I want to consider why a faction would be opposed to this poll, and why that faction would bring this dilatory amendment to weaken the poll and reduce member participation in it. Perhaps they are concerned the results won’t favor their position in the debate between various voting methods. However, there was significant support for STV at our local convention, and they seem to be effectively circulating a petition in support of STV as well, so I think they could have an opportunity to use the poll as a show of support for STV. I don’t want to think that these comrades are so opposed to member participation and engagement that they would oppose polling members for feedback on principle, but given their opposition to the base resolution’s goal of collecting member input, the evidence that their amendment would undermine that goal, their stated position that they wouldn’t support the resolution even if their amendment passes, and the fact that multiple speakers for the amendment and against the resolution openly ridiculed the very idea of voting, I find it difficult to come to other conclusions. A vote against this amendment and for the base resolution is a vote for our member democracy, and I urge all comrades to vote accordingly.
Statement IN FAVOR by Sam D.
The proposed amendment ensures that the underlying resolution is both written fairly and can reach as wide an audience in the membership as possible. This was written to balance some of the confusing procedural language used in the original resolution, which implies that the unusual “combined” method incorporates ranked choice voting in any meaningful way and makes inconsistent claims about achievement of proportional representation of candidates. Changing the venue to the Weekly Update also ensures that we do not give false legitimacy to poll results or negatively affect future member participation in actual, binding chapter votes by using the chapter voting platform, OpaVote, for this straw poll.
Statement IN FAVOR by Jane N.
I am in favor of this amendment.
Statement AGAINST by Joe R.
I encourage members to vote against this amendment.
I’m a sponsor of the base resolution, and the idea behind it is to include as many members as possible in discussions about voting methods and delegate elections for national convention. Since I joined the chapter a year and a half ago, there have been frequent comments from members that there should be more avenues and opportunities for debate and discussion. In addition to conducting a poll with wider reach, there has already been and will be more debate, writing and reading these member statements, votes on the amendment and base resolution, and a ton of conversations between members as a result. Our chapter has debated voting methods multiple times, and these are all ways that we can collectively process and move towards a democratic consensus together.
Electronic participation is the most inclusive way to get the highest level of participation, and it makes sense to use our usual chapter method of OpaVote to do that. Members use OpaVote regularly, it’s entirely anonymous (a must-have), and the functions of sending, filling out, and getting the results of the poll are all self-contained to the same secure platform. We’ve used methods other than OpaVote, for example to set the agenda for our highest-ever-attended local convention, and got 111 responses. In contrast, you can see from the chapter’s vote history on our wiki that we regularly get 200+ on more contentious or significant topics, from our endorsements and priority campaigns to other resolutions like this one. The idea that we shouldn’t use OpaVote because it’s our standard voting system and this is non-binding is absurd. Governments and organizations use their actual voting systems for non-binding referenda all the time—because they’re secure, work well, and people are capable of understanding the difference. Rather than protect the integrity of OpaVote, all this would accomplish is to diminish the value of members voicing their opinion in a meaningful way on an important (and recurring) issue.
The newsletter wouldn’t be anonymous (a dealbreaker), is managed by a working group rather than chapter-wide bodies, and is used to communicate with thousands of non-members. The amendment itself doesn’t even identify an alternative platform to use instead. One of the arguments made against the base resolution at the last general body meeting was that the process costs money and causes a delay, but so does this amendment. Between that and some of the authors indicating at that meeting that they wouldn’t vote for the resolution either way, I don’t see this as a genuine attempt to use a preferred alternative to what was proposed.
For these reasons, I encourage everyone to vote against the amendment and for the base resolution.
Statement AGAINST by Guido V.
I want to first off agree with those who spoke in favor of this amendment that it is silly and ultimately a waste of time to hold such rigorous debate on a resolution that will determine how we poll which determines how we vote, etc etc. There are far more important things to be discussing in the face of fascism bearing down on us. Therefore it is confusing to me why this amendment exists at all except to extend debate and cause friction between members. If it IS true that such discussion is a waste of time, then those who believe that would not introduce unnecessary amendments and instead support the base resolution as is.
Those who support the amendment have put forth only a few arguments of substance that I will address now. I do not consider the language of the base resolution to be problematic enough to need an amendment nor do I consider the use of Opavote “inappropriate” for conducting such a poll. OpaVote is a tool like any other and WE, as a deliberative body, decide the meaning to give to it. Thus won’t spend time on those.
The first materially based argument that I’ve heard, and the one that I believe holds the most weight, is that it will cost the chapter around $160 to send this vote. To be sure, that amount is NOT inconsequential and our funds SHOULD be allocated in an efficient manner. However, it is my understanding, that opavote has been used in situations where participation was extremely low. If we’re being efficient, shouldn’t we have a threshold for how many people participate if we’re going to spend that money? Should we take a page out of DOGE’s book and focus on waste, fraud, and abuse? I personally don’t believe we should. In addition, based on the recent financial report, I have no reason to believe that we are in such a dire financial situation that $160 will break our chapter.
The second argument for this amendment is that it would be confusing for members to decern whether this is a vote or a poll. This argument seems to leave out that we already put our members in confusing situations by asking them to vote on resolutions and amendments. For new members, that can be equally confusing. We as a chapter have a responsibility to make sure our instructions for members are as clear as possible. However, we must ALSO trust that our members are capable, critical thinkers and can read instructions. If we can’t do that and are restricting our use of things like OpaVote based on the premise it might be confusing, then we have bigger issues to focus on.
In conclusion, I urge members to put this debate to a rest and vote against this amendment and for the base resolution. There are more important things for us to figure out and enough time has been spent on this already.
Statement IN FAVOR by Far
Hello Comrades, I am writing in FAVOR of the Amendment to the resolution “To Poll Membership on Delegate Election Voting Method”. I am strongly against the base resolution unamended. Firstly, I want to reiterate THIS IS A NON-BINDING STRAW POLL. The unamended resolution purports to educate the membership about voting methods and the upcoming delegate elections, however I fail to see how a non-binding straw poll through OpaVote (or anywhere) does anything to actually educate the membership on any of these issues and their actual tangible effects. If the goal is to educate the membership, that requires us to do the hard work of having actual conversations with people, building consensus, and navigating disagreement healthily. There are no easy shortcuts, or silver bullets to this, and a straw poll through OpaVote (which costs ~$160 each time we have to use it) is a waste of our resources, money and time.
Simply said: a straw poll alone does not arm anyone with the knowledge to engage on these issues, and any result of this straw poll cannot adequately inform anyone on the best course to be taken. The only way to arm our member-base with knowledge and confidence to participate in our internal democracy is through robust reporting and information sharing, through having conversations, and through building consensus. The numerical metrics of a poll alone do not mean true consensus across the chapter. I am a co-sponsor of the amendment, because what this amendment seeks to do by relocating such a poll to the publications apparatus, is to hopefully better facilitate an actual political education goal without confusingly utilizing the same tool we use for binding votes. A vote/poll in a vacuum is the most inelegant and rudimentary way to gauge consensus. It does not equip people’s faculties for engaging in our internal democratic structures, and is only a tool that offers the most value once deeper education has already happened. This amendment seeks to deepen the possibilities for education and conversation if we must have such a poll at all. This is why I support it.
The base resolution, unamended, is clearly being used as a way by some of our comrades to advocate for Approval Voting in the delegate elections. It would be great to hear these comrades articulate why they believe Approval Voting is what they want, especially since the National DSA constitution strongly recommends STV/Hare to allow for proportional representation in our delegations. I believe a proportional delegation to national convention that preserves the texture of political thought in our chapter is truly in all our best interests, and in the best interests of the greater project of building the strongest possible DSA. If you agree, please sign this petition https://forms.gle/cE9vfmaqUiG3pFWy7 :).
In summation, this poll seems to be a way to obfuscate a real political conversation that should happen honestly and transparently. The non-neutral basis for the poll is inappropriate and not a democratic use of our resources. This amendment seeks to advance a more neutral polling mechanism with more accurate language that actually begins to accomplish the task of starting a conversation with the membership body. I urge everyone to please vote in favor of the amendment, but vote against the resolution unamended.
Statement AGAINST by Carl R.
Comrades, I am asking you vote NO on the amendment to 2025-04-GR01: To Poll Membership on Delegate Election Voting Method.
This amendment would mean that, instead of asking members to vote how they normally do, we would ask the Steering Committee to come up with a new polling method, send it through a method that does not verify membership in the same way, and then verify individual responses. This is a large amount of extra work to put on our SC. As someone who has served three years on that body, I am quite certain that this extra amount of work compared to opavote is just not worth the chapter’s time.
I also trust that our membership - namely, everyone reading this - is capable of understanding that something flagged as nonbinding is nonbinding. I have been active in this chapter for 6 years at this point, and that is 6 years of experience with smart, engaged members - who I trust fully to make this distinction without a problem. I know the membership is smarter than me, so I if I can understand it, I don’t think there’s a concern here.
Additionally, one whereas in this amendment mentions the chapter was investigated by the credentials committee at the 2023 National Convention. It fails to mention that the chapter was found to have conducted that election correctly - or, in other words, was fully exonerated. I trust the membership to draw its own conclusions about the failure to include this outcome while listing the accusation.
Comrades, vote NO.
Statement AGAINST by Claire M.
I encourage members to vote against this amendment, because it will lead to less members participating in a chapter poll designed to include as many members as possible in an important chapter discussion.
Member democracy is the special sauce of DSA. It’s the core of what makes us different from non-profits that claim to be all about movements but actually represent… no one. That’s why, as a sponsor of the base resolution, I proposed a poll of membership on what voting method we should use for an upcoming election of delegates to our national convention. Some funky national rules mean this decision will actually be made through a live vote at a general body meeting (show up May 18th to vote!!!). But I know most of our members simply will not be able to make this meeting. And fundamentally, I believe the voice of every member matters. The poll proposed by the base resolution is intended to collect input that folks who can make the live vote can consider when we cast our votes. This amendment will make that information less useful by suppressing turnout, and so I encourage you to vote against it.
The amendment says the poll will be distributed in our weekly newsletter, rather than via OpaVote. And while I ~hope~ all members read our newsletter, the truth is fewer members open these emails than OpaVote emails. And far fewer members click links on our newsletters than to vote in an OpaVote. Data to support this is here: Open and Click Rates for Different Email Types - Google Sheets. Folks are members of DSA because we believe in democracy, so we do our best to participate in it. That’s why members keep an eye out for OpaVote ballots.
Simply put, the point of doing a poll at all is to get the most number of responses possible, so it yields useful information about what chapter members believe. This amendment will make it more difficult to do that. So if you believe all members, even our busiest ones, should be included in chapter decisions, then I urge you to vote no on this amendment.
Statement AGAINST by Dieter L.M.
I urge members to oppose this amendment because it undermines our chapter’s commitment to broad democratic participation. Our chapter has consistently relied on polls to maximize member engagement in decision-making, as more members participate in them than in GBMs or chapter meetings. Given that we’re taking the unusual step of deciding the voting method through a live vote, it only makes sense to also follow our standard practice of deliberation and polling to ensure the most inclusive process possible.
Additionally, National’s rule allowing a voting method to be chosen with just 15% support at a single meeting is an undemocratic, top-down imposition. DSA’s strength lies in our robust member democracy, and it would be irresponsible to make an important decision about our internal elections through a rushed process with such a low threshold. Just because we can adopt a voting method this way doesn’t mean we should. Our straw poll resolution ensures we incorporate as much chapter-wide debate and input as possible.
Finally, it’s worth noting that the description of STV in the original resolution was taken directly from materials circulated by its own advocates. Despite this, they insisted on rewriting the language, claiming bias, and pushing for further changes. This amendment does not strengthen democracy—it circumvents it. Vote no.
Statement IN FAVOR by Rishi G.
This base resolution is an extremely frivolous waste of chapter funds, a misuse of chapter resources (over $400), and a baldy factional and antidemocratic initiative. This amendment would correct the use of Opavote to a better venue for socializing education about these different voting methods ahead electing delegates. I heavily am in favor of this amendment and against the base resolution.
Statement IN FAVOR by Nell G.
I support this amendment because it prevents the most damaging aspects of the proposed resolution. The straw poll proposal appears to be aimed at muddying the waters rather than providing a simple path for members to select rank choice voting, the most democratic option that is also supported by DSA National in our platform and convention rules. We will come out stronger as a chapter if we send a multi-tendency delegation to convention, representing the diversity of our chapter. The amendment orients the resolution to use a more measured approach and avoids the confusion and cost of inappropriately using opavote for a non-binding vote.
Statement IN FAVOR by Julian A.
I am in favor of the amendment with it’s changes to the poll language. It seems to me that if we are to be doing polls of membership, we should be ensuring that the language used in the poll is as close to a neutral presentation of the options as possible. Otherwise, the results of polls can be manipulated by those writing them through their presentation of our internal discussions (this sort of poll manipulation is of course something we see often in bourgeois politics).
Statement IN FAVOR by Gary Z.
I am a writer of this amendment. On the fence? Consider the following…
This amendment was written to correct what I see as a serious exploitation of our chapter’s voting system as proposed in the base resolution. Our chapter’s voting system is a vital anchor of our chapter’s internal legitimacy and decision-making processes. Unfortunately, we have seen declining participation in chapter voting over the years. In my observation, this is the result of members feeling that votes are pointless, confusing or lacking in proper choice. Introducing a non-binding, superfluous poll - as the base resolution proposes - will not increase participation. It risks cheapening our process and training members to see internal voting as nonbinding and superfluous. This is a huge risk to our response rates and, thus, the legitimacy of our internal votes and elections.
The amendment will move the proposed nonbinding poll on chapter delegate voting preference to the Weekly Update. Our weekly update is the best way to reach chapter members, and is well positioned to integrate the proposed poll into its publishing schedule to initiate this study, if this is the true intent. If the intent is to actually solicit meaningful input and member response into the consideration of voting systems, we should be leveraging our active internal departments and systems that are designed to solicit and spread new ideas (like our chapter publications!) — not exploit other systems with specific and sacred purpose.
To be clear, what is proposed in the base resolution is not really a “poll” of the membership. A poll would require developing varied lists, estimating proper sample sizes and designing a methodology that would correct for response bias. Our chapter’s official voting systems are not designed nor appropriate a space to conduct general interest polling — they are designed to be skirmishes to determine a path forward when there is disagreement on policy or position. The base resolution cheapens and corrupts our voting process to pique vague interests. But it also risks confusing members on the actual constitutional processes that determine how our chapter members decide on a delegate voting system - which happened in the last time we ran chapter delegate elections…
My hope is that once this amendment passes, base resolution organizers will work with our chapter’s publications and adcom teams to develop a proper polling methodology and response system. It is possible to organize a responsive study that is sensitive to data organization given the wide array of talent we have in our membership. Additionally, developing our polling method through publications will enable a wider array of use for other chapter activities - particularly important for our Program Development Commission but theoretically something that can be used by a broader array of chapter formations.
Statement IN FAVOR by Rakshith R.
The underlying resolution to do an “advisory poll” on a procedural mechanism is ill-conceived and unable to perform the stated objective of membership participation and deliberation. Polling, as we see constantly in electoral politics, is an attempt to create a political fact based on gaming questions towards a snapshot of the “sampled demographics”.
Let us be blunt, this poll will be gamed irregardless of its design and voting mechanism by different groups (and a specific Caucus) whipping votes through their email lists + friend groups.
If we wanted to provide membership participation in deliberation for those members not in person, it would be more effective to encourage participation in our forums. Or to encourage and actually use the DSA slack for internal debate.
This amendment reduces the damage of this “advisory” poll, by moving it off of opaVotes and removing obfuscated language, such as is used with the “compromise” voting option between stv and approval.
We should not have non-binding votes using the opaVotes mechanism. As members in-person mentioned and as any research will tell you, active voter participation in the chapter is already low. Less than 10% of the chapter votes, whether in-person or online, in open-votes in the past year. This is also true for voting in our branch chapters. If we water down the perceived “weight” of the opaVotes mechanism, we can expect this percentage to decline even further.
Finally, it should be noted, based on this already low voting percentage for binding resolutions, that we cannot expect this poll to actually reach and inform low participation members. This is doubly so for a procedural mechanism, not a vote to endorse/reject a program, person, or strategy of action.
Statement IN FAVOR by Larry M.
Comrades. The chapter should adopt the amendment…because it mitigates the confusion that the underlying resolution would create…We need to learn to debate and act collectively…if we are going to build the a world we can actually live in. It is a strategic imperative. But here, in LA, and elsewhere, certain chapters leveraged approval voting to secure a voice for certain caucus delegations at the convention out of proportion to their actual support among members. These tactics may be necessary if we were outmaneuvering the boss. Butsilencing the full diversity of our members does not help to unite comrades for the fights ahead. That’s why i am glad the last convention allowed for stv voting once a certain percentage of folks sign onto a petition in a chapter. But the dominant caucus opposes that approach. And our chapter leaders are advancing an unnecessarily confusingnonbindingopavote to politicize that petition procedure rather than turning to the real political choices ahead for our class and our communities.
Statement AGAINST by Hayden G.
I strongly oppose the proposed amendment to the poll resolution. OpaVote is the most effective and democratic tool we have to reach the full membership, and that’s the point of a poll—getting a real sense of where members stand. Watering down the base resolution undermines that goal. We should be strengthening our communication tools, not limiting them. Please vote no on the amendment.
Statement AGAINST by Emily N.
I’m writing to urge you all to vote against the amendment to GR01: To Poll Membership on Delegate Election Voting Method.
As a chapter, we should be seeking more input from our members and using official chapter resources to do so. Conventions are high-stakes moments—for both our chapter and the national organization. The internal debates we’ve seen locally and across the country over the last two years have been shaped by the decisions made by delegates to the 2023 National Convention. This is why we should be encouraging greater member engagement in choosing how we elect delegates to this year’s National Convention—not less. The base resolution offers an opportunity to engage and educate our membership effectively while soliciting feedback, and this amendment would curtail its effectiveness.
The base resolution proposes a method of gathering feedback that our members are familiar with: OpaVote. While this would be a poll rather than a formal vote, OpaVote is the tool our members recognize and associate with expressing their position on decisions that affect the entire chapter.
Beyond familiarity, there are three key reasons why OpaVote is the best platform for conducting this outreach:
First, OpaVote allows us to target Members in Good Standing (MIGS), rather than sending out a broad poll that could be filled out by anyone—member or not. If we’re soliciting feedback from our membership, we need to ensure it’s our voices that are reflected in the results.
Second, it reduces the administrative burden on the Steering Committee. Creating ballots, running votes, doing outreach —these tasks take a lot of time and labor. As a former Steering member, I personally spent hours over many days working on ballots for last year’s votes. If we used a tool like Google Forms or Action Network, every response would have to be manually cross-checked against our member rolls. OpaVote streamlines this by automatically targeting MIGS, and ensuring only members are able to provide input. We can still put out reminders in various platforms telling members to vote - indeed, this is an important part of the process, as this kind of outreach has helped ensure members who have gotten behind on dues re-up so they are back in good standing and able to participate in chapter democracy.
Third, OpaVote ensures privacy. Since the system links each vote to a verified email while keeping the contents of that vote confidential, members can participate without concern. Other platforms wouldn’t allow us to guarantee that same level of privacy.
Let’s also look at precedent: Last year’s Steering Committee ran a poll to inform the local convention’s consent agenda and order of operations. That poll—run through Google Forms—received only 111 responses. In contrast, the first General Resolution of this year, Aquí Estamos y No Nos Vamos, had 119 participants in the final vote, and 172 in the successful amendment vote. That resolution itself was never in doubt—it had broad chapter support. The amendment, which generated broad interest and enthusiasm, also encouraged more participation by our members.
Last year’s general resolutions also saw significantly higher turnout than the Google Form poll. For example:
- 261 members voted on endorsing Initiative 83, which was our highest turnout,
- And 159 members voted on internal chapter security amendments, which was our lowest.
That’s still far more engagement than we saw with the convention poll.
If we want to move together as a chapter and make decisions with wide participation and opportunities for feedback, we must use tools that are accessible, trusted, and efficient. Conducting this poll through OpaVote will allow us to educate hundreds of members on delegate voting methods and build buy-in heading into the National Convention.
Additionally, the amendment specifically requires use of the Weekly Update to disseminate the poll. Our Weekly Update is a crucial resource for our chapter, no doubt, and the many volunteers who spend hours working on it each week help streamline chapter communications internally and with the broader community. However, this is not an appropriate forum to conduct a poll or outline debate. The Weekly Update provides a high volume of information, leaving very little space to flesh out the broader context. By using OpaVote, the distinct message send to all members will stand on its own, encouraging greater engagement from the target audience: our members.
And to the arguments about extraneous bureaucracy and expense - this amendment has added yet another step to the process that they are concerned with, and they could have streamlined the entire process by simply organizing to vote down the base resolution instead of adding this amendment. It is clear that those making these arguments do not mind the chapter spending our resources (time, money, and capacity) run this very vote on their amendment.
I do not believe that polling our membership to understand voting method preference is at all a misuse of chapter funds., and I hope that this process of using opavote for polls leads to more frequent outreach to our members for broad input.