Bringing Democracy To The SPL

There has been a lot of talk about democracy in the SPL recently, with the "Rebel 10" claiming to be "Arab Spring" of democracy. Looking at two different forms of democracy will show that to be a slightly perverse way of looking at it.

Rhode Island and California have 2 seats each in the US Senate. Rhode Island has 2 seats in the other house, the House of Representatives, whereas California has 53. The reason for this difference is that the two houses have different forms of democracy. The Senate uses federal democracy, and each state gets two seats regardless of size. The House of Representatives uses representational democracy, like the House of Commons, where the number of seats is linked to the number of people. Representational democracy, is closer to pure democracy, and is more democratic than federal democracy.

The SPL gives a vote to each club. This not linked to how many fans that club "represents" (it might be questionable whether clubs do represent their fans, but there should at least be an acknowledgement that they should). The SPL is therefore federal. Gretna got as many votes as Rangers.

In order to offset this a bit, the 11-1 voting systems allows any two clubs to veto a measure. This might be Rangers and Celtic, but it could be St Mirren and Dunfermline. This is really a nod to the fact that Rangers and Celtic have the most power because they have the most fans, but it's a cludge because no-one wants to recognise that power is vested in clubs by the people, when it comes to football.

A truly democratic system would give a vote per fan, rather than a vote per club. There are practical limitations to how that can be done, but here is an outline of how it could be introduced.

1. Block voting

Each club gets a number of votes based on its average home gate for the previous season. This is a practical way of working out the size of the club without fans having to register. It also gives clubs an insentive to attract more fans to the stadium. at the moment no club is filling their stadium every week so that won't limit their voting rights.

2. A basic majority wins

There would be no need for the 11-1 rule if voting was proportionate to fan base, so that rule can go.

3. Universal Suffrage

Every club registered with the SFA should get to vote on everything. Ross County will be in the SPL next season but have no say in how it will be structured till they get there. Equally, Dundee have a lot of fans but no say in league reconstruction. That is undemocratic. If Rangers end up in the SFL, they will still have a lot of fans, and should still have a say in how leagues are governed.

These measures would make Scottish Football more like the House of Representatives, and therefore more democratic, and would acknowledge that all clubs are not created equal. Power comes from the people who support those clubs (who are created equal).

In the US system, legislation has to be passed by both the House and the Senate (and President - I propose Victor Wanyama) before it can become law. A similar model where rules have to be backed by a majority of fans and a majority of clubs, could be considered, but might just lead to nothing ever being passed.