[H-GEN] Constitutional amendments

[Raymond Smith]

On Thu, 25 Jun 1998, David Starkoff wrote:
> My current thought is to allow two forms of proxies.  One is dependent on
> getting agendas for meetings, and candidates for elections, out a week or
> so before a meeting.  This would allow a person to vote for a specific
> person in absentia.

Why not simplify it to just have proxies like everyone else (in my
limited experience) -- is there something in the corporations law?
I think it would be better to allow properly authorised proxies that let
the voter specify how s/he wants his/her proxy used.

On Fri, 26 Jun 1998, Robert Brockway wrote: 
> I won't jump up and down too much if the rest of the membershop decide
> proxies are a good thing, but for the life of me I cabn't recall why we
> put them in, in the 1st place and I do regard them as  type of vote
> weighting (Mr Popular can have 6 votes has 5 ppl wanted to proxy to him as
> they couldn't be bothered coming - and remember proxying could be
> solicited)[0]
> 
> [0]  Yeah I know it is an extreme case but these things do happen. [1]
> [1]  I get sick of paging to the bottom of my screen to look at footnotes
> so here after will be putting them below the paragraph they link too. :)

This is specious (sp?). If My Popular really wants to get in then he will
bribe his 5ppl to come along to the meeting _just_ for the vote and get in
any way. Just ask the Young Liberals. Or, what do we do if we publish the
list of candidates and Mr Popular goes out and assinates all the other
presidential candidates? (It's an extreme case, but these things do
happen... :-) Sorry, Rob, but I really think you should have more faith
in your fellow club members. Methinks your suspicious profession is
getting the better of you.)

While proxies can be abused they are by no means the only way to "stack
an executive". While proxies can lead to irrespobsible voting -- so can
compulsory/absentee/<insert-system> voting.

Raymond
---
raymond at humbug.org.au