[EM] Public elections are the ones that matter.
davek at clarityconnect.com
Sun Nov 13 20:33:15 PST 2005
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 20:32:14 -0500 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> 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.
You and I have talked of delegable proxies before on EM. The basic
thought seems GOOD and agrees with something I wrote long ago. Needs
someone else in the act, for we clashed too much.
To be useful I believe it requires more power than other voters should
tolerate unless government is given controls that prevent misuse.
>>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.
As I read, you see no law other than expected resistance by those who
would, or expect to, lose power.
There are a zillion corporations - start with those that have little of
such problems. With success you weaken resistance. Remember that
successful proxies gain power by being such.
>>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.
Corporations are already in the business of keeping track of proxies.
Seems like this would not change other than becoming a bit more complex
AND I see no one else getting in that business.
> Might work. More likely not. What's in it for the board?
It has possibilities via changing how proxy battles are fought and resolved.
> (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.
I was responding to what I read - which seemed to suggest involving
nonprofits because of THEIR goals, without THEM necessarily understanding
or being concerned with STOCKHOLDERS' needs.
> 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....
davek at clarityconnect.com people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
More information about the Election-Methods