At 08:17 AM 11/13/2005, Dave Ketchum wrote: >Doing delegable proxies for public elections means selling and getting a >law to fit - worth pursuing.
Yes, I'd agree. However, it will be very, very difficult under present conditions. Creating independent DP organizations should theoretically be much easier, would be safer (i.e., it is not necessary to entrust government itself to an untried and unproven technology or technique), and would not have to deal with certain very knotty problems until the organizational maturity existed that could handle them. >Doing them for corporations: > Does Robert's Rules have anything helpful? > Is there any law that forbids what you want? If so, work on the law. The "law" that "forbids" it is the law of the persistence of power inequities. Delegable proxy will redistribute power from those who currently enjoy a power excess; they will see this as a threat. Guaranteed, they will oppose it, and, within the existing structure, they have excess power. That does not guarantee that they will succeed, but.... it does give them a leg up. I've seen tremendous effort exerted to overcome entrenched corporate management, all for nothing. In California, there was a proxy battle, an effort by an attorney who had noticed that the California State Automobile Association was essentially in bed with the insurance industry and was acting in the interests of that industry, not precisely in the interests of motorists. In spite of having, I'd say, substantial justice on his side, he lost. Of course, this attorney and his slate of candidates may have had their *own* agenda.... CSAA, like many similar corporations, sends out proxy solicitations. Most members, I think, don't understand the implications, and, naturally, want to be helpful.... Existing management has, through this, almost unopposable power. >Then write up a bylaws change and have a stock owner submit it to an >annual meeting for hoped-for adoption. Might even get the board to back >adoption - assuming they see it as useful. Might work. More likely not. What's in it for the board? (A truly enlightened board might recognize the value to the corporation of having a collection of owners who had, perhaps, "pride of ownership." But I think that the fears would generally overpower this recognition.) >Mention of nonprofits turns me off - for my stock I would like more >flexibility than I have now as to proxies, but I would WANT a proxy paying >enough attention to vote intelligently. Don't know what this has to do with nonprofits. If a shareholder wants his or her interests represented by a nonprofit, Warren Beatty, or anyone, for that matter, it's his or her right. But the shareholder does not need a change in law or corporate bylaws to have this right. All the shareholder has to do is name the proxy suggested by that organization or person (or to name that person himself or herself). Shareholders *have* the right to do this, but don't generally do it. Instead, small ones anyway, they just sign those forms sent to them by the nice people at corporate headquarters.... This is a variation on my constant theme: we don't need *them* to change, *we* need to change.... ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
