| In a democracy,
voting clout is usually based on "one member one vote", and
a proposal typically requires a majority vote to pass. The situation
is different in general meetings of shareholder companies and some non-profit
societies where proxy voting is permitted (by statute or bylaws). In
such settings some individuals carry more votes than others (based on
how effective they are at collecting proxies). Still another variation
is an organization with corporate members and a "weighted voting"
structure, with the larger corporate member getting more votes (based
on the size of its staff or budgets). All of this seems to make a lot
of sense, but does it really?
As an advisor and instructor
on voting and democratic decision-making, there are times when I find
myself asking some troubling questions: Does democracy always work?
Is the majority always right? Specifically, I sometimes ask:
- If the "one member
one vote" or "proxy voting" or "weighted voting"
are followed to the letter and there are no voting irregularities,
does this by itself guarantee the best collective decisions for an
organization? What if the majority is driven by anger, fear, vindictiveness,
or turf protection?
- If Board members do not
prepare for meetings and are essentially "pooling their ignorance",
can they legitimize their bad decisions by the fact that "everyone
else voted that way"?
- If the majority is driven
by politics, self interest or narrow interest, and pays only lip service
to the mission and broad interests of the organization as a whole,
does the fact that a majority voted in favor of a bad motion reduce
the organization's exposure to risk? Does this make the waste of precious
resources and the loss of important opportunities any less significant?
In a recent conversation with
a colleague, I spoke about replacing the word "democracy" by
the words "sophisticated, informed, principled, objective and responsible
democracy". I wondered aloud how things would have been with an "outrageous"
way of allocating votes. Suppose each member was given votes based on
10 criteria. Assume 1 vote per criterion, and a maximum of 10 votes per
person (possibly even giving votes to those who are not bona fide voting
members, like staff and visitors):
- Operating from a solid
base of principles and full knowledge of issues.
- Coming to meetings fully
prepared, having asked all technical questions in advance.
- Always pulling one's
weight and working as a member of a team.
- Placing the group's mission
and broad interests ahead of personal or narrow interests.
- Having a healthy dose
of suspicion, skepticism, and alertness to warning signs of trouble.
- Having the courage to
speak up and ask tough questions, at the risk of becoming unpopular.
- Demanding excellence
of others.
- Knowing when to speak
up and when to be quiet, listen and learn from others.
- Creativity, innovation,
and the capacity to think "outside the box".
- An even temper, objectivity,
and a solid commitment to serve ("Parking one's ego at the door").
I then asked my colleague: Would
a majority vote based on the above weighted voting system be better for
organizations? He laughed at me and said: "Under this system of voting,
some Boards of Directors I know will not have even one voting member…"
How will your governing body and its members fare under the above system?
|
