The debate over observing election counts in England raises an earlier question in the Church of Ireland: how do people put themselves forward, and what do voters know about them?
Reading Adrian Vincent’s argument for greater transparency in Church of England General Synod elections, my first reaction was: at least you have declared candidates.
We have votes in the Church of Ireland too. I cast mine at the Meath and Kildare diocesan synod on Saturday 10 October. But Vincent’s article raises questions that begin well before anyone opens a ballot box.
How does someone make it known that they would like to serve? How do electors know who actually wants to stand? And how does an eligible person get their name onto the ballot?
I am publishing these concerns before the count on Tuesday 20 October because they concern the process through which we were asked to choose. Whoever is elected, the questions about willingness to serve, access to nomination and information for electors remain the same.
An informed choice
Friends standing for General Synod in the Church of England shared information about their candidacies: why they wanted to serve, what experience they would bring, and where they stood on issues facing the Church.
Reading their statements, I could see democracy in action. Electors had something on which to base a choice. They could compare priorities, consider different views and decide whom they wanted to represent them.
But in my experience of the process in Meath and Kildare, where was the equivalent?
We had names. What we lacked was a comparable opportunity to hear from the people behind those names.
I do not expect every candidate to produce a manifesto covering every controversy in Anglicanism. A short statement of interest, experience and priorities would be a considerable improvement. It would help us choose people for what they could contribute, rather than principally because we recognised their names.
Willingness should be expressed, not assumed
The July letter from our diocesan secretary illustrates the difficulty. It provided useful descriptions of the various bodies and asked members to consider whether they wished their names to go forward. But the mechanism was withdrawal: unless members advised the secretary otherwise by 7 August, they would be understood to be willing to stand and serve.
That feels the wrong way round.
Being willing to serve on one body does not mean being willing—or able—to serve on every body for which one is eligible. These responsibilities involve different interests, skills and commitments. Surely the starting point should be an invitation to say where we would like to contribute.
At the synod meeting on Saturday, several colleagues told me that they did not want to stand and had not seen the July message asking them to withdraw.
That exposes the weakness of treating silence as agreement. A person who has actively decided to stand and a person who has simply missed an email may appear on the same list, with nothing to distinguish them in the eyes of electors.
Sending a message does not, by itself, establish that everyone who remains silent has knowingly volunteered.
Who votes—and who can stand?
For General Synod elections, the Constitution makes an important distinction between the electorate and those eligible for election.
Chapter I, Part I, sections 4(5) and 5(1) establish that clerical diocesan synod members elect clerical General Synod representatives, while lay diocesan synod members elect lay representatives.
But section 7 defines eligibility for election as a lay representative more widely. It does not require the person to be a member of diocesan synod.
The electorate and the eligible candidates are therefore different groups. Membership of the body doing the electing does not, in itself, define the full pool of people who may be elected.
The July letter itself reproduces that wider eligibility. Yet the process as I experienced it presented diocesan synod members as the pool from which we were to choose.
That leaves a straightforward question: what nomination procedure allows an eligible person who is not a diocesan synod member to appear on the ballot?
The letter does not explain it. I have not found a clear, advertised route through which such a person can offer to serve and have that willingness communicated to electors.
Wider eligibility means little in practice if people cannot readily discover how to exercise it.
What the ballot papers told us
Then there were the ballot papers themselves. The names of those who had indicated that they did not wish to stand were replaced with “Xxxxxx”. By comparing those positions with the published list of synod members, it was possible to work out whose names had been removed.
Why retain those placeholders at all? A ballot paper should present a clear list of eligible people who have agreed to stand for that particular body. Those who have declined need simply to be omitted.
Taken together, these arrangements leave electors with an awkward task. We know that some people have withdrawn. We cannot tell whether everyone remaining has consciously agreed to stand. And we have little information about who actively wants to undertake the responsibility or what they would bring to it.
We are being asked to choose representatives without a clear account of who is actually offering to represent us.
More than General Synod
This was not confined to electing our General Synod representatives. Other elections at the Meath and Kildare diocesan synod operated on the same basis: members were treated as willing to stand unless they had withdrawn.
The qualifications for each body differ, but the underlying question remains the same. Who has actively offered to serve, and how can electors learn what they would bring to the responsibility?
The July information usefully explained the work of the various bodies. What was missing was the corresponding opportunity to hear from prospective candidates.
Knowing what a committee does is only half the information an elector needs. We should also know who wants to serve on it, why they are interested, and what relevant experience they can offer.
Whether we are choosing representatives for the wider Church or people to undertake responsibilities within our own dioceses, an informed choice should be the ordinary expectation.
Familiar names and unwritten rules
The process can feel closed to anyone outside the familiar circles. If you are already well known across the dioceses, your name may come readily to mind. If you are newer, less connected, or outside those circles, how do you make yourself visible?
Nobody needs to organise exclusion for a process to become exclusive. Familiar names, unwritten conventions and an absence of open invitations can achieve that quite effectively.
Those who have served before have the advantage of recognition. Their experience may be a very good reason to elect them again. But electors should also have a meaningful opportunity to hear from others who would like to contribute.
A Church that encourages people to offer their gifts should make the route to doing so clear.
From ballot to result
The count is scheduled for Tuesday 20 October, as the diocesan information states. Once it is complete, the results should be communicated promptly to members and published accessibly, with enough information to understand the outcome.
Vincent is right to ask whether candidates can meaningfully scrutinise a count. His concerns deserve attention. My experience raises an earlier question: can electors meaningfully scrutinise the choices before them?
An accountable count matters. So does a process that gives people a clear opportunity to stand and voters a sound basis for choosing between them.
An open invitation to serve
A straightforward process would explain eligibility for each body, provide an accessible nomination route, invite affirmative expressions of willingness to serve, and give electors short candidate statements. It would also describe the voting and counting arrangements and publish results promptly.
None of that requires a vast bureaucracy. It requires a commitment to making participation possible beyond the circle of people who already know one another.
General Synod makes decisions about our common life, worship and ministry. Diocesan bodies carry significant responsibilities for the life of the Church locally. Choosing their members deserves more than an assumption that everyone already knows how things work—or knows the people whose names they should select.
Transparency begins with an open invitation to participate. It continues through an informed vote and an accountable count. And it includes telling the electorate who has been elected.
We should not need an introduction to the right people before we can offer to serve the Church.
I would welcome clarification from the dioceses about the nomination arrangements, particularly for eligible General Synod candidates who are not members of diocesan synod, and would update this article to include it.
Sources
- Adrian Vincent, “Synod election counts need to be transparent”, Church Times, 9 October 2026.
- Diocesan secretary’s letter to members of Meath and Kildare diocesan synod, July 2026, with accompanying election information.
- Church of Ireland Constitution, Chapter I, Part I, sections 4(5), 5(1) and 7, printed page 1.3.
