Democracy is More Than Voting 1&2
Amy Wilhelm
What is the relation between parliamentary deliberation and member rule? What does member rule mean, in practice?
The Social Democrat is Coming!, from the December 1892 cover of Der Wahre Jacob
Democracy is more than voting: The case for parliamentary democracy
This article is the first in a series.
DSA’s democratic structures, from the NPC and its subcommittees to chapters and theirs, typically operate under parliamentary procedure. Usually Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) is used, but some bodies instead use an alternative or derivative parliamentary authority such as Rusty’s Rules (a simplified RONR developed by the IWW which is adequate for small meetings). I prefer consistency and am most familiar with RONR, but in my opinion the exact authority is less important than the general shape of the practice.
There are a lot of legalistic arguments to be made based on the fact that RONR is our rules, that’s how we work, you have to follow them. But I’m a firm believer in the principle that the law was made for man, not man for the law, and I think a rational and ultimately positive political argument is much stronger.
Despite its name, parliamentary democracy when implemented in a mass organization is a form of participatory democracy - all members have equal rights not just to vote (as would be the case in plebiscite democracy - for example referenda and absentee voting) but to propose and shape motions. It’s a method through which we reach agreement on action together, avoiding both the rule by minority of consensus methods and the constrained choice of referenda.
We need an argument for why how we do democracy in DSA matters. Why vote in meetings? Why not simply poll members?
Often when arguing for parliamentary methods - for voting in meetings - we cite debate as important. And while it is - I’ve had my mind changed and been educated by debate many times - it is only one aspect of parliamentary procedure. The goal in my view, especially in organizations like DSA, is to move from combative to collaborative. Proposals can be amended in response to criticisms, or delayed or referred if further input is required. The agenda and the meeting itself are subject to the democratic will of the membership.
Our model of organizing means we develop ideas collectively. We don’t exclusively depend on leaders to guide and members to just follow; we discuss problems we’re facing and develop plans to address them together. This distinguishes us from bureaucratic organizations like most unions and other socialist parties. Although often this happens outside of meetings and results in resolutions being presented to vote on, taking proposals to the body means that there is opportunity for other members to contribute.
Participatory democracy also serves our strategic goals. Any organization is doomed to make a product that resembles the organization. If we seek to produce a society that truly believes that every cook can govern and executes on that belief, we have to practice that. Just as we argue for democracy among participants in movements and coalitions, we need that for our members.
Through this we develop members as political actors - not just as voters, but as confident participants in governing. We help them build skills not just for DSA, but to take home to their workplaces, unions, and other communities. And through both recruitment and members taking their experiences onwards, we help to develop a society and a working class ready for self-governance.
My next piece in this series will discuss some common alternative methods of voting in DSA and analyze them through this lens.
Democracy is more than voting: …But sometimes it isn’t?
This is part 2 of my series “Democracy is More Than Voting.” In this piece I’ll survey alternative methods of representation and voting common in DSA: absentee and proxy.
Absentee voting
Many DSA chapters and other bodies, including the NPC, regularly practice absentee voting - that is, in the context of parliamentary democracy, taking votes by some means outside of a meeting. It is popular for several reasons, among them that it was adopted by many chapters and bodies at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic because there was no immediately practical way to vote during an online meeting. Arguments in favor include claims that meetings are inaccessible, leading to the euphemism “accessible voting,” and that members who do not or cannot attend meetings are “disenfranchised.” Leadership bodies also treat it as an expedient measure, taking votes using anything from Loomio to thumbs up in Signal chats for items they are unwilling (or sometimes unable) to wait for a meeting (or call a special meeting) to dispose of.
This is typically prohibited by Robert’s Rules (RONR (12th ed.) 45:56) unless specifically allowed in the bylaws, which it usually is not. RONR says that it is “a fundamental principle of parliamentary law” - that is, of the practice of deliberative assemblies - “that the right to vote is limited to the members of an organization who are actually present.” Various workarounds are used for this - a chapter SC may call an advisory vote by email if quorum is not met and take action on the chapter’s behalf, or a body may move to ratify votes taken outside of the meeting (which is not really what a motion to ratify is for (ibid 10:55) but it’s fine).
This is a negative, legalistic argument, but I think RONR 45:56 also supports the positive argument I laid out in my previous article: the question can be modified in a meeting through amendments, minds can be changed through debate, and procedural motions could otherwise affect the question being voted on.
Absentee voting also hides a very important question: who decides what the question is? It could be any question with enough signatures is put to the membership, similar to initiatives in states which allow them. It could be the chapter SC or similar makes the decision. It could be that questions can be amended in a membership meeting, then the amended version put to a referendum, which is a baffling practice to me and really undermines the argument that referenda are important because they are more accessible than meetings.
My core argument is this: voting only by mail (or email, etc) ceases to be parliamentary procedure - it ceases to enable participation in the democratic process. It loses the ability of participatory democracy to develop members, to execute on the philosophy that every cook can govern. And that is reason enough to avoid it.
Proxy voting
Proxy voting is a practice where one voting member can assign their voting power to another. This is discussed in RONR (12th ed.) 45:70-71, though interestingly 45:56 describes proxies as a form of absentee voting.
I view proxy voting as mostly harmless - in Seattle DSA it was negotiated as an alternative to absentee voting, which had been proposed - but RONR makes my arguments against it.
Namely: in stock corporations it makes some sense because shares are voting, not individuals, but it should be avoided in “nonstock” corporations where the voter is an individual. It doesn’t provide representation for absent members; it provides the illusion of that, while over-weighting the votes of one or more present members.
There are consequences in practice as well. At the 2025 Seattle DSA Convention, two opposing sides on a particularly contentious topic engaged in what one member called an “arms race” to get proxies for their supporters. It’s impossible to say whether this changed the outcome, but it over-weighted proxy holders’ votes on not only this question but the others we considered as well.
There is one exception where I think proxy voting is positive in DSA: Convention. At Convention, delegates represent the chapter. They are elected to do so as themselves and their faction, generally, but each chapter is entitled to a certain number of votes. When some delegates are unable to attend - and alternatives are exhausted, or it’s temporary - it makes sense to allow delegates to assign a proxy so that the chapter still receives its proportional representation at Convention.
In the next and final piece in this series, I’ll briefly touch on electoral methods and make the case for STV and proportionality.
Individual essays are not official caucus opinion.
