Low level engagement from members in RPS election needs to be addressed

Once again we have a low voter turnout in the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s (RPS) English Pharmacy Board election. Being a board member is undoubtedly no easy task and we should all be pleased that there are members willing to undertake this role. Accordingly we should surely give consideration to their various statements, letters and posts and cast our votes for those who seem to best meet the needs of members and of the board and the RPS.

All candidates deserve to receive this consideration and, whether successful or not, should be aware of the level of support they have across a sizeable proportion of the electorate. Although there will be members who, for entirely understandable reasons, choose not to vote — preferring to leave others to decide the composition of the board — surely we should be expecting at least a 30% or even 40% voter turnout in the election?

The level of engagement from members in the election is an issue that needs to be discussed within each local practice forum (LPF). Such discussions should serve to increase future member engagement in board elections. Further discussion in the LPFs to identify the reasons members may have for not voting would also be helpful. These reasons could then be forwarded to the board and the RPS for their consideration in respect of any changes to the electoral process that would lead to greater engagement of members in board elections.

Douglas Hancox


New Zealand


Last updated
The Pharmaceutical Journal, PJ, 20 June 2015, Vol 294, No 7867;294(7867):DOI:10.1211/PJ.2015.20068690

You may also be interested in