[H-GEN] Re: [H-ANNOUNCE] Constitutional amendments

[Martin Pool]

On Thu, Jun 25, 1998 at 01:20:15AM +1000, Robert Brockway wrote:

> It is because I have never felt comfortable with the idea of allowing one
> person to get more than one vote.  If A proxies to B, B will vote the way
> B wants to vote but get 2 votes in doing so, B will not (imho :) vote the
> way 'A would have voted' with one of them.  Of couse it could be argued
> that A will choose a like minded person to proxy to, but this is
> subjective.

Well, ultimately it's A's responsibility to vote in person, choose a
responsible proxy, not turn up, or throw their vote away.  It's their
vote to do with as they please, including throwing it away.

Actually, there's an option: compulsory voting.  People who don't turn
up in person (or submit postal votes) will be fined $100 or so.  No
more problems.  [0]

> That is true.  I would, for example, be happier with voting via
> teleconferencing rather than the current proxy scheme.  Teleconferencing 
> would be more representative of 'not being there in a physical sense on in
> an intellectual sense' than proxying. 

A problem with postal votes is that in a meeting, rather than an
election, the motions may be changed before they are finally put to
the vote.  So, giving someone a proxy allows them to exercise their
discretion if the motion changes.

--
Martin 

[0] Smiley free zone.