Proxy voting

[Tony Harrison-Smith]

All the BMAA votes that I have voted in have taken the majority of those who voted. Those who did not vote were not counted.

Tony

[Gary M]

May I re refer you to the two links I posted above which address your questions and comments.

paste the whole line in the browser

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_requi ... iamentary)

“It may be advisable to consult with a parliamentarian before attempting to adopt a new voting method. In addition, if the electorate is likely to be unfamiliar with the proposed voting system, some education beforehand is advisable to avoid confusion.”

"In parliamentary procedure, most substantive questions are decided by a simple majority of those present and voting. [11] If a rule specifies a voting requirement based on the number of members present, then an abstention has the same effect as a negative vote.[12]

...
[edit] Absolute Majority
An absolute majority or majority of the entire membership (in American English, a supermajority voting requirement) is a voting basis which usually requires that more than half of all the members of a group (including those absent and those present but not voting) must vote in favour of a proposition in order for it to be passed. In practical terms, it may mean that abstention from voting could be equivalent to a no vote.
Absolute majority can be contrasted with simple majority which only requires a majority of those actually voting to approve a proposition for it to be enacted.
Absolute majority voting is most often used to pass significant changes to constitutions or to by-laws in order to ensure that there is substantial support for a proposal."

..................

I have seen posts by senior people on the BMAA Yahoo Forum that indicate

1 This merger will require a 2/3rds majority vote of all members
2. The BMAA (normally?) uses a simple majority of 2/3rds of those voting

So yes it would good to clear it up

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/microlights/

[Brian Hope]

Not for the first time I am confused by your post Gary. All you have done is quote a couple of definitions from an indifferent on-line encyclopaedia. Quite what that has to do with the LAA and BMAA voting procedures I do not know.
Each association's rules set out what the procedure is, neither association is bound by what Wikipedia or anybody else suggests is the 'proper' way of doing things.

[G.Dawes]

I would certainly want to vote for an amalgamation, but I understand that unless I travel four hundred miles get crammed int a hall and hold up my hand, I will be discounted. That is not acceptable and for a major change there should be a postal vote for ALL members to take part. Travelling to the AGM etc is no longer an option, when the organisation is made up nationally, with some from Wick and other from Lands End. Now what do you say to that. At the start the PFA was a small band of like minded people, all local to each other when the rules were formed at the start. At Sywell, when I went in the late 60's there were sometimes less than forty people voting.
Not much else changed since then.

[mikehallam]

My sentiments too G Dawes !

I think the avuncular days of David Faulkner-Bryant and Mr. Walker's one man engineering efforts are in the misty past.

In fact we have to praise the original rule makers as their 1940's construction is going reasonably well, but perhaps a recover and top overhaul is called for after last years 'paint job'.

[Bill McCarthy]

How on earth anyone can see an abstention as meaning a "no" vote, other than rigging an outcome, is beyond me. Say, at a union meeting, a vote is taken by a show of hands. If 100 people raise their hands "for" a motion and then 100 raise their hands "against" I would suggest that there would be out and out warfare if the remaining 50 then raised their hands as "abstentions" and there was an attempt to include them either way in the count. It simply means that the 50 have not been persuaded by either argument. If there is a significant number of "abstentions" the debate has to be re-opened to renegotiate or clarify.

[Nick Allen]

Absolutely right Bill -- took the words out of my mouth.
Gary, I think you're playing fast and loose with the language.
You said first

It is common practice that an abstention is counted as a no vote

Then you give sources that say e.g.

If a rule specifies a voting requirement based on the number of members present, then an abstention has the same effect as a negative vote.

and

it may mean that abstention from voting could be equivalent to a no vote

This is not at all the same as your original statement!

[Brian Hope]

Graham, you seem somewhat behind the drag curve. There will be a motion to allow member balloting, and it will have been voted on prior to any merger proposal. If a merger proposal is likely in time for the AGM, an EGM will be called to vote on the balloting proposal so that if approved, members can be balloted on the merger issue. This was mentioned earlier in this thread, so no need to get excited about having to travel hundreds of miles, all very unacceptable etc etc.
The debate has now moved on to what constitutes a majority and whether abstentions should be counted as NO votes. All very odd.

[Gary M]

The abstentions is a side issue but in the case of having to have an Absolute Majority as is usually the case when Very Important Issues are at stake, an abstention is equivalent to a no vote. That is all I meant to convey. Any vote that is not for the motion reduces the percentage of votes in favour of the motion.

If 2/3rds of the membership must vote in favour to carry the motion an abstention or a person not bothering to vote is the same as having voted against it.

In the case of an absolute majority of 2/3 rds of the membership being required, out of a total membership of 100, if 35 abstain and 65 vote for it; the motion still fails. Why is it relevant? Because I read on the BMAA website or forum that 2/3rds of the total membership will have to VOTE FOR the motion to merge if in fact it ever gets that far. Even in a case of a simple majority vote requirement, an abstention can have the same effect as a no vote by denying a majority to the yes votes.

As far as being confused is concerned, please take the time to read the current LAA rules and I think you will agree they need a total overhaul. If any mere mortal amongst us can make head or tail of the voting rules good on 'im. All I can deduce from them is that the EC can do virtually anything it likes and can stonewall anything it doesn't like. Why is that relevant? Because either the LAA or the BMAA will find it very hard to survive financially as convergence between types continues to provide overlap of functionality and as rules change around Europe.

To merge successfully I think the BMAA are going to require a better set of day to day voting rules so that their membership can feel safe that their priorities will have sufficient weight and democratic representation.

My day job is a business analyst in situations where huge amounts of change are happening including multi billion pound takeovers. Part of that job is risk assessment and mitigation. The biggest risk to this merger is the argument that they have a better voice alone than as a minority in the LAA machine and can be outvoted by 60 people! What's so confusing about that?

But, I didn't start this thread with the merger in mind. I just disagree with the thought of 51% of 100 people at an AGM determining the future of the LAA. So my proposal is not connected with a special case of "allowing" a special postal ballot on a single issue (merger). It is about wholesale change of the rules, which are totally impenetrable, and in my view, unfair to the wider membership. The current rules are the key to how the CAA has dictated to recreational flyers for 60 years in a way that is not possible with a fully united and democratically represented membership of thousands of flyers. Recent moves by the CAA have provided a wake up call that the days of not rocking the boat because they are "allowing" us to fly are over. We have to fight with the gloves off and a united front is required to do that effectively. Just my personal opinion.

[Brian Hope]

As no one from BMAA has come forward with a definitive explanation of how its voting system operates, I have obtained a copy of its Constitution. Like LAA, a postal ballot is held for elections of Council members when there are more candidates than seats available.
A postal ballot is also necessary if there is a proposal to change the Constitution. In this case a 2/3 majority of those that vote is required - there's nothing at all about it being 2/3 of all members.
Non constitutional issues require only a simple majority at an AGM or EGM.
Finally, for a motion to dissolve the association a majority of 3/4 of voting members present at an AGM or EGM is required.
It would appear that statements that 2/3 of the entire BMAA membership would need to approve a merger are totally unfounded.