On 1 Jul at 7:03, Christopher Gray <[email protected]> wrote: > Tim, > > While I support the principle behind your suggestion, I'm unsure as to > its practicality. > > I presume that, if a nominee has conflicting requests, then they cast > the associated numbers of votes in each direction. That's easy. > However, what I'm concerned about is the limit of two. If I was to > require the Chairman (for example) to vote for option A, and there > were a hundred others requesting voting for the other options, then I > would expect the Chairman to place all the votes - e.g. 20 for option > A, 40 for B and 40 for C - plus his own choice. Why limit to two? Good point. Perhaps we need to distinguish between: (a) Postal Votes where the member states exactly what they are voting for. (b) Proxy votes where the member states exactly what they wish to vote for and some nominee exercises that vote. Perhaps no limit per nominee is needed for that. (c) Carte Blanche Proxy Votes where the member says to his nominee that they can vote for whatever the nominee wants. This should be controlled if it is allowed at all. My vote would be for (A) only; but as the UK Parliamentary Elections have proved, postal votes can be abused. <snip for brevity> -- Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected] for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/