Proxy voting: Difference between revisions
Ron Duvall (talk | contribs) →Legislatures: the short charter |
→Legislatures: this is not proxy voting, it is interactive representation |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
Various proposals have been made for a kind of automatic proxy voting in legislatures. For example, it has been proposed that instead of electing members from single-member districts (that may have been [[Gerrymander | gerrymandered]]), members be elected at large, but when seated each member cast the number of votes he or she received in the last election. Thus, if, for example, a state were allocated 32 members in the U.S. House of Representatives, the 32 candidates who received the most votes in the at-large election would be seated, but each would cast a different number of votes on the floor and in committee. This proposal would allow for representation of minority views in legislative deliberations, as it does in deliberations at shareholder meetings of corporations. |
Various proposals have been made for a kind of automatic proxy voting in legislatures. For example, it has been proposed that instead of electing members from single-member districts (that may have been [[Gerrymander | gerrymandered]]), members be elected at large, but when seated each member cast the number of votes he or she received in the last election. Thus, if, for example, a state were allocated 32 members in the U.S. House of Representatives, the 32 candidates who received the most votes in the at-large election would be seated, but each would cast a different number of votes on the floor and in committee. This proposal would allow for representation of minority views in legislative deliberations, as it does in deliberations at shareholder meetings of corporations. |
||
In 1912, the [[People's Power League]], led by [[William S. U'Ren]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://home.vicnet.net.au/~prsa/history/hoag&hal.htm|title=Proportional Representation|author=Hoag, Clarence and Hallett, George|publisher=The Macmillan Company|date=1926accessdate=2008-02-19}}</ref> proposed an amendment to the [[Oregon Constitution]] to allow each legislator to cast a number of votes equal to the number of votes he received in the last election. Thus, a legislator who received 25,000 votes would have had more voting power than two legislators who received 12,000 votes apiece. A majority of all the votes cast at the preceding election would have been required to pass a law. This proposal would have abolished the [[Oregon Senate]] and placed the state's legislative power in a single assembly of sixty members serving four-year terms. The [[Governor of Oregon]] and his defeated rivals would have been [[ex officio]] members of the Assembly representing voters whose candidate was defeated. If a Socialist legislative candidate were defeated, for instance, then the votes of his supporters would have been cast in the Assembly by the Socialist candidate for Governor.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=980CEED91E3CE633A25753C3A9609C946396D6CF|title=Government by Proxy Now: Oregon Plan Would Present Ideas of Representative Lawmaking|publisher=New York Times|date=1912-06-30|accessdate=2008-02-19}}</ref> The measure failed by a vote of 71,183 to 31,020.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://bluebook.state.or.us/state/elections/elections12.htm|title=Initiative, Referendum and Recall: 1912-1914|publisher=Oregon Blue Book|accessdate=2008-02-19}}</ref> That same year, a similar measure was contained in a proposed new Portland charter called The Short Charter. Article 22 provided simply, "A majority of all the votes cast at the election and represented in the commission, as in this article provided, shall be necessary to pass any measure. Each member of the commission shall represent in the commission the voters who elected him; and in voting on any ordinance, resolution, charter amendment, or other roll-call in the commission, each member shall cast the number of votes for or against the same by which he was elected."<ref>{{citation|publisher=The Twentieth Century Magazine|date=1912|pages=292|author=Tyson, Robert}}</ref> |
|||
The [[New Zealand Parliament]] allows proxy voting. Sections 155-156 of the Standing Orders of the [[New Zealand House of Representatives]] specify the procedures for doing so. A member can designate another member or a party to cast his vote. However, a party may not exercise proxies for more than 25% of its members (rounded upwards).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/078D6043-9E03-4D87-93BA-A6BB84ACC063/6619/standingorders20095.pdf|title=Standing Orders of the House of Representatives|publisher=New Zealand House of Representatives|date=2005-08-12|accessdate=2008-02-19}}</ref> |
The [[New Zealand Parliament]] allows proxy voting. Sections 155-156 of the Standing Orders of the [[New Zealand House of Representatives]] specify the procedures for doing so. A member can designate another member or a party to cast his vote. However, a party may not exercise proxies for more than 25% of its members (rounded upwards).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/078D6043-9E03-4D87-93BA-A6BB84ACC063/6619/standingorders20095.pdf|title=Standing Orders of the House of Representatives|publisher=New Zealand House of Representatives|date=2005-08-12|accessdate=2008-02-19}}</ref> |
||
Revision as of 23:08, 22 February 2008
Proxy voting is the delegation to another member of a voting body of that member's power to vote in his absence. It is essentially synonymous to delegated voting.
Generally, a member who has another's proxy authorization may further appoint yet another member as his proxy, thereby voting for all those in his proxy tree. This is known as delegable proxy.
Proxy appointments can be used to form a voting block that can exercise greater influence in deliberations or negotiations.
Governmental settings
Legislatures
The rules of some assemblies presently forbid proxy voting. For example, in both houses of the U.S. Congress, as well as in most if not all state legislatures, each member must be present and cast his own vote for that vote to be counted. This can result, however, in the absence of a quorum and the need to compel attendance by a sufficient number of missing members to get a quorum. See call of the house.
Various proposals have been made for a kind of automatic proxy voting in legislatures. For example, it has been proposed that instead of electing members from single-member districts (that may have been gerrymandered), members be elected at large, but when seated each member cast the number of votes he or she received in the last election. Thus, if, for example, a state were allocated 32 members in the U.S. House of Representatives, the 32 candidates who received the most votes in the at-large election would be seated, but each would cast a different number of votes on the floor and in committee. This proposal would allow for representation of minority views in legislative deliberations, as it does in deliberations at shareholder meetings of corporations.
The New Zealand Parliament allows proxy voting. Sections 155-156 of the Standing Orders of the New Zealand House of Representatives specify the procedures for doing so. A member can designate another member or a party to cast his vote. However, a party may not exercise proxies for more than 25% of its members (rounded upwards).[1]
The New Zealand Listener notes a controversial occurrence of proxy voting. The Labour Party was allowed to cast votes on behalf of Taito Phillip Field, who was frequently absent. Theoretically, this was only to be allowed if a legislator was absent on parliamentary business, public business or pressing private business, such as illness or bereavement.[2]
Elections
The Spelthorne Borough Council notes that in the United Kingdom, electors may appoint a proxy. An elector can only act as a proxy for two people to whom they are not directly related. However, they can be a proxy for any number of electors if they are directly related to those electors. The voter can change his mind and vote in the election personally as long as his proxy has not already voted on his behalf or applied to vote by mail.[3]
The Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council notes that voters must provide a reason for using a proxy, such as being away on vacation. A narrower subset of reasons is permissible if the proxy is to be for more than one election. Except in cases of blindness, the validity of all proxies must be certified by someone, e.g. an employer or doctor.[4]
Proxy voting played an important role in Guyana politics in the 1960s. Prior to and during the 1961 elections, proxies had been severely restricted. Some restrictions were lifted, and there was a rise in proxy votes cast from 300 in 1961 to 6,635 in 1964. After that election, the Commonwealth Team of Observers voiced concern about proxy votes being liable to fraud. The proxy voting rules were relaxed further, and in 1969, official figures recorded 19,287 votes cast by proxy, about 7% of the total votes cast. Amidst allegations of fraud, more restrictions were placed on proxy voting in 1973; in that year, about 10,000 votes were cast by proxy.[5]
In 2003, India's People's Representative Act was amended to allow armed forces personnel to appoint a proxy to vote on their behalf.[6]
Some Chinese provinces allow village residents to designate someone to vote on their behalf. Lily L. Tsai notes that "In practice, one family member often casts votes for everyone in the family even if they are present for the election.[7]
In Canada, the provinces of Nova Scotia, Ontario, Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut allow citizens to vote by proxy if they expect to be absent.[8]
Nonprofit organization settings
Proxy voting is automatically prohibited in organizations that have adopted Robert's Rules of Order as their parliamentary authority, unless it is provided for in its bylaws or required by the laws of its state of incorporation. The book opins, "Ordinarily it should neither be allowed nor required, because proxy voting is incompatible with the essential characteristics of a deliberative assembly in which membership is individual, personal, and nontransferable. In a stock corporation, on the other hand, where the ownership is transferable, the voice and vote of the member also is transferable, by use of a proxy."[9]
Thomas E. Arend notes that U.S. laws allow proxy votes to be conducted electronically in certain situations: "The use of electronic media may be permissible for proxy voting, but such voting is generally limited to members. Given the fiduciary duties that are personal to each director, and the need for directors to deliberate to ensure properly considered decisions, proxy voting by directors is usually prohibited by statute. In contrast, a number of state nonprofit corporate statutes allow for member proxy voting and may further allow members to use electronic media to grant a proxy right to another party for member voting purposes."[10]
Proxy voting, even if allowed, may be limited to infrequent use if the rules governing a body specify minimum attendance requirements. For instance, bylaws may prescribe that a member can be dropped for missing three consecutive meetings.[11]
Corporate settings
Proxy voting is commonly used in corporations for voting by members or shareholders, because it allows members who have confidence in the judgment of other members to vote for them and allows the assembly to have a quorum of votes when it is difficult for all members to attend, or there are too many members for all of them to conveniently meet and deliberate. Proxy firms commonly advise institutional shareholders on how they should vote.
Domini notes that in the corporate world, "Proxy ballots typically contain proposals from company management on issues of corporate governance, including capital structure, auditing, board composition, and executive compensation."[12]
Associations of institutional investors sometimes attempt to affect social change. For instance, several hundred faith-based institutional investors, such as denominations, pensions, etc. belong to the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility. These organizations commonly exercise influence through shareholder resolutions, which may spur management to action and lead to the resolutions' withdrawal before an actual vote on the resolution is taken.[13]
The Securities Exchange Commission has ruled that a investment adviser who exercises voting authority over his clients' proxies has a fiduciary responsibility to adopt policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that the adviser votes proxies in the best interests of clients, to disclose to clients information about those policies and procedures, to disclose to clients how they may obtain information on how the adviser has voted their proxies, and to keep certain records related to proxy voting.[14] This ruling has been criticized on many grounds, including the contention that it places unnecessary burdens on investment advisers and would not have prevented the major accounting scandals of the early 2000s.[15]
It is possible for overvotes and undervotes to occur in corporate proxy situations.[16]
In Germany, corporate proxy voting is done through banks.[17]
See also
External links
- Direct Representation -- Advocate a kind of proxy voting by representatives in legislatures.
- European physical proxy agency in annual meetings
References
- ^ "Standing Orders of the House of Representatives" (PDF). New Zealand House of Representatives. 2005-08-12. Retrieved 2008-02-19.
- ^ Clifton, Jane (2007-03). "Nice Gig for Some". New Zealand Listener. Retrieved 2008-02-19.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ "Absent Voting". Spelthorne Borough Council. 2006. Retrieved 2008-02-19.
- ^ "Elections - voting". Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council. Retrieved 2008-02-19.
- ^ Jagan, Cheddi (2000). "Virtual Army Coup In Guyana". Retrieved 2008-02-19.
- ^ Kolhe, Avinash (2004-04-23). "Democracy, bureaucracy and armed forces". Rediff. Retrieved 2008-02-19.
- ^ Lily L. Tsai (2007). Accountability Without Democracy: Solidary Groups and Public Goods Provision. p. 207.
- ^ http://www.elections.ca/loi/com2000/Voting/vot06_e.html
- ^ RONR (10th ed.), p. 414-415.
- ^ Arend, Thomas E. (2002-01-01). "Legal Implications of Electronic Governance". Association Management. Retrieved 2008-02-16.
- ^ Gleason, Patricia R. (1978-09-19). "Advisory Legal Opinion - AGO 78-117". Office of the Attorney General of Florida. Retrieved 2008-02-16.
- ^ "Proxy Voting Guidelines & Procedures" (PDF). Domini Social Investments. Retrieved 2008-02-16.
- ^ "302 Religious/Social Investor Proxy Resolutions Slated for 2008". Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility. 2008-01-15. Retrieved 2008-02-16.
- ^ "Final Rule: Proxy Voting by Investment Advisers". Securities Exchange Commission. 2003-01-31. Retrieved 2008-02-16.
- ^ Stewart, Brian D. (2003). "Disclosure of the Irrelevant?: Impact of the SEC's Final Proxy Voting Disclosure Rules". Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law.
- ^ http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/proxyprocess/proxyvotingbrief.htm
- ^ Braendle, Uno C. (2006-03-01). "Shareholder Protection in the USA and Germany - On the Fallacy of LLSV". German Law Journal. Retrieved 2008-02-16.