05-03-2012, 02:16 PM
David Deary wrote: As I pointed out earlier AGMs are not necessarily the most representative. Can someone direct me to the policy/procedure regarding proxy votes? (3 March)
I am not even sure of the proxy process but I am endeavouring to find out. (5 March)
Phil Thomas wrote: It is my understanding that in meetings of this type proxies for or against the motion would routinely be held by the chair. Sorry Mr Chairman but I am not looking to take on the work load involved in collating proxy votes. (5 March)
David
The CS Constitution - specifically Section 5 - is the place to look. I don’t think you will find it particularly enlightening. As an inconclusive discussion on Proxy Votes on this Notice Board between 28 December 2011-5 January 2012 demonstrated, the true meaning/intention/objective is difficult to pin down. You might think it aspires to enhance representativeness, but I think you will find in practice it can actually obstruct and defeat representativeness. Bloc voting such as you propose - you do realise that is what you are up to, don’t you? - is one obstacle, but so too is the attempt to be even-handed. For example, Clause 5.4 states: Where an Individual member is under the age of sixteen, one parent or guardian of that Individual member is granted an automatic proxy vote on behalf of the Individual member if the member concerned is not voting in his or her own right. Individual members under the age of 12 at the date of any meeting can only vote by automatic proxy.
So, the parent or guardian can vote for himself or his ward/child, but not for both. Do you think that is fair? Think carefully before answering.
Separately, Phil’s point is well made but needs to be elaborated. But that’s for a different place and a different time.
Lest anyone think I’m being hyper-critical in alluding to the Constitution in this way, let me just say that all I am trying to do is to acknowledge how difficult it is ensure accuracy and precision in drafting such documents.
I am not even sure of the proxy process but I am endeavouring to find out. (5 March)
Phil Thomas wrote: It is my understanding that in meetings of this type proxies for or against the motion would routinely be held by the chair. Sorry Mr Chairman but I am not looking to take on the work load involved in collating proxy votes. (5 March)
David
The CS Constitution - specifically Section 5 - is the place to look. I don’t think you will find it particularly enlightening. As an inconclusive discussion on Proxy Votes on this Notice Board between 28 December 2011-5 January 2012 demonstrated, the true meaning/intention/objective is difficult to pin down. You might think it aspires to enhance representativeness, but I think you will find in practice it can actually obstruct and defeat representativeness. Bloc voting such as you propose - you do realise that is what you are up to, don’t you? - is one obstacle, but so too is the attempt to be even-handed. For example, Clause 5.4 states: Where an Individual member is under the age of sixteen, one parent or guardian of that Individual member is granted an automatic proxy vote on behalf of the Individual member if the member concerned is not voting in his or her own right. Individual members under the age of 12 at the date of any meeting can only vote by automatic proxy.
So, the parent or guardian can vote for himself or his ward/child, but not for both. Do you think that is fair? Think carefully before answering.
Separately, Phil’s point is well made but needs to be elaborated. But that’s for a different place and a different time.
Lest anyone think I’m being hyper-critical in alluding to the Constitution in this way, let me just say that all I am trying to do is to acknowledge how difficult it is ensure accuracy and precision in drafting such documents.