The right to vote is fundamental to a functional democracy, and unions must ultimately be accountable to rank-and-file membership. For us, One Member One Vote (#1M1V) is the gold standard for worker democracy in a union.

Here are the top five things you might hear from #1M1V haters and how we respond:

#1: One Member One Vote is "Too Expensive"

You can’t put a price on democracy.

Without a doubt, there is a cost to running an election amongst a million members.

However, this is nothing new for most unions. Every local union across the country already runs elections for local officers, runs votes for contract ratifications, and runs votes for union organizing elections.

International unions like the Teamsters, UAW, and more are run by their members through 1 member 1 vote. (Here are which major unions have 1 member 1 vote.)

Union democracy has existed at the local level for over 100 years, and modern technology has made online voting options efficient, accessible, and secure.

#2: One Member One Vote Gives "Too Much Power" to Big Locals

What people are really saying is that a majority of members should not have a voice.

Without one member one vote, the system gives disproportionally outsized power to smaller locals.

One person, one vote is a basic principle of democracy.

Assuming that big locals will vote as a monolith is truer under the current system where local leaders hold tight control over their delegations at conventions. In a 1M1V system, different candidates will appeal to different segments of a local’s membership.

#3: One Member One Vote Will Be "Like Anarchy"

New things are scary, especially if you are in the class of leaders who hold power under the current system.

Local unions have had One Member One Vote for over 100 years and it’s hardly resulted in chaos. Members are smart, engaged, and they know best about what their union should look like.

Unions cannot be afraid of member engagement and leadership. A more engaged membership will mean a stronger union!

#4: Only the Rich Will be Able to Run

The current system is not producing robust opportunities for rank-and-file members to run for national union office.

If the current union system was truly open to any candidate, why aren't we seeing rank-and-file workers challenging incumbent leaders? But is this current system that gives us the same type of elected leader time and time again.

If we look to the United Auto Workers, where they just won One Member One Vote, we can already see a union that is alive and active...and organizing in big numbers, especially last year in California!

#5: Why One Member One Vote? Why Not Other Reforms?

We believe that One Member One Vote is the gold standard for union democracy.

That's right that we need more reforms, and we've got them listed elsewhere (link), but that one-member-one-vote is fundamental. Where unions move to one-member-one-vote, we see campaigns on issues at members' workplaces.

We welcome campaigns between candidates about our other reforms: like raising strike pay, like putting big resources into organizing the unorganized in our core industries, and like coordinating our bargaining with the giant corporations.

These reforms should be part of the campaigns between candidates. Let's breathe some life, some competition for ideas, into our union. It is OUR union after all. We must always ask ourselves why others don't want US to vote for our leaders directly?

Busting The Top Five Myths About One Member One Vote