08-08-2013, 12:39 AM
Thanks George for further elucidation.
“That electoral fraud is a crime is a fact, not an opinion.”
True, but what is called electoral fraud is open to interpretation. Eg in the UK successive governments have been gerrymandering boundaries to their benefit probably for as long as there has been a general election. The US were accused of placing financial and other obstacles dressed up as security in the way of black voters. And they didn’t count all the votes. Either or both of the last two Republican victories may have been rigged.
This just does not compare with the legitimate use of proxy votes, so I don’t know why you are talking about crime. Also you say
“permits a certain Mr X to wield disproportionate influence by commanding Y number of proxy votes”
What does disproportionate mean, other than you don’t like the outcome? A proxy vote is a vote – votes aren’t much use if you don’t add them up. Presumably a Mr X couldn’t walk into the AGM unannounced and dump 60 proxy votes on the table and declare himself elected – he would have to already be a candidate, declared weeks in advance. That’s plenty of time for people opposed to him to run their own opposition campaign.
What is proposed is essentially a new weighting system, similar to the one proposed by Andy Muir that was ridiculed. What’s to stop a Mr Big from asking supporters to send in postal votes anyway?
“It also requires mutual respect.”
Yes, at all times. No offence meant George, but I think many of the comments regarding Mr Big/Mr X would not be considered respectful as it seems they had a particular person in mind. More to the point, fiddling with the system to ‘stop’ someone is very undemocratic.
But we are agreed upon things like the transparency of information and the free expression of views, and examining and modifying (other) issues. So let’s have them! Cheers..
“That electoral fraud is a crime is a fact, not an opinion.”
True, but what is called electoral fraud is open to interpretation. Eg in the UK successive governments have been gerrymandering boundaries to their benefit probably for as long as there has been a general election. The US were accused of placing financial and other obstacles dressed up as security in the way of black voters. And they didn’t count all the votes. Either or both of the last two Republican victories may have been rigged.
This just does not compare with the legitimate use of proxy votes, so I don’t know why you are talking about crime. Also you say
“permits a certain Mr X to wield disproportionate influence by commanding Y number of proxy votes”
What does disproportionate mean, other than you don’t like the outcome? A proxy vote is a vote – votes aren’t much use if you don’t add them up. Presumably a Mr X couldn’t walk into the AGM unannounced and dump 60 proxy votes on the table and declare himself elected – he would have to already be a candidate, declared weeks in advance. That’s plenty of time for people opposed to him to run their own opposition campaign.
What is proposed is essentially a new weighting system, similar to the one proposed by Andy Muir that was ridiculed. What’s to stop a Mr Big from asking supporters to send in postal votes anyway?
“It also requires mutual respect.”
Yes, at all times. No offence meant George, but I think many of the comments regarding Mr Big/Mr X would not be considered respectful as it seems they had a particular person in mind. More to the point, fiddling with the system to ‘stop’ someone is very undemocratic.
But we are agreed upon things like the transparency of information and the free expression of views, and examining and modifying (other) issues. So let’s have them! Cheers..