49.5% don't care enought to vote

[wedino]

The 20% of growers that produce 80% of grain should have 80% of say in any plebiscite.

[TOM4CWB]

Peaqueen,

The 48.5% not voting is not a comparison to the last election.

If we say that 32,000 ballots were issued... about 15,000 more would have been issued had the 16,000 non-active producers (producers who hadn't delivered in the last 2 crop years) had been included.

Now we are at a comparative base with the last election.

47,000 Ballots... 16,000 returned.

34% return is Very comparible to the last election in 2004.

However the distribution could be quite different... which could surprise many folks when the count is done.

Only one sleep Peaqueen... then we will find out!

[peaqueen]

I agree, with the 20/80 rule.
The voting process is based upon the cooperative principle of business.
However a coop is still an optional form of membership.

One of the descriptions of the CWB is a marketing corporation. Corporate voting is governed by shares structures.

So really how valid is the resulte, when in reality the most earnest supporters of the CWB market the least on the board.

Only in Western Canada... pity...pity.

The CWB is a corperation

[peaqueen]

Oh and Tom thanks for respecting anonymity.

[wilagro]

The 20% of the growers who produce 80% of the grain should have exactly TWENTY percent of the VOTE. What could be more democratic than that?

[chaffmeister]

Say there's only three wheat farmers - you, me and Tom. You produce 90% of the wheat and Tom and I grow 5% each.

And let's say there's a vote to decide whether (1) we can sell to whomever we like or (2) we sell to the CWB only.

Tom and I vote to keep the CWB and you vote for freedom of choice.

But we each get only one vote. So you lose: 2 to 1.

Still think it's fair?

[rbrunel]

So let me get this straight... I gross 1million$ and u gross 100 000$...do I get a million votes for the gov't and u get 100 000 votes?...WoW I think we are on to something...democracy rules... one person one vote..

[TOM4CWB]

brunel;

In a "Free" and "democratic" society, the "Free" part is about freedom to associate and own personal property.

If there is no freedom to associate and own personal property... it is no longer a democracy... it is communism.

Communists always had elections from what I have seen!

[wilagro]

Since when were 'single desk' supporters classed as 'communists'?

You guys are a laugh a minute.

[chaffmeister]

This is for rbrunel and all those in his philosophical camp…..

Social governance (i.e. government) as we know it, is based on social equality – one-vote-one-person because, in theory, we believe people have equal value and possibilities in contributing and influencing government as well as equal social benefit derived from government actions (social benefit, not financial). We all expect and demand it, don’t we? The alternative is a class or caste system where some people are more “socially equal” than others. It would be an autocracy – or one-party rule, dictatorship, etc. Others might call it a Kingdom – he who has the gold, makes the rules. But most of the Western world has outgrown it and has no appetite for it. (So rbrunel, keep your $1,000,000 gross in your pocket for now…..)

Corporate governance is quite different; it’s based on economic equality – one-vote-one-share. Each shareholder gets a block of votes corresponding to his or her economic stake in the corporation. This is not based on the amount of investment in the company – if it was, Bill Gates would have very little influence on his little company Microsoft – most investors have spent on Microsoft much more than Billy ever did. No, it’s the wealth you stand to gain or lose that matters. Billy has a lot to lose – so he gets more of a say in how things are done than others. There are many very good reasons why this system is preferable to the one-vote-one-person system we see in government. (Too many to list here.)

So now we come to the CWB. Is it a government? Or is it a corporation? If the CWB is to be governed on a one-person-one-vote structure, then aren’t we saying it is a social structure, not an economic one? Like a government. But if that’s the case, I should get a vote too – as well as all my friends here in Winnipeg.

But all you guys would say “Hang on – you don’t have a stake in what happens at the CWB!”
And I’d say, “Sure I do – I eat.”
And then you’d say, “That may be true, but we have FAR MORE at stake than you. We actually grow the stuff.”
And then I’d say “But I have a quarter-section just south of town where I grow a bit of barley every now and then. I grow the stuff too. I should get a say – same as you.”

Now some of you would say “That’s cool. You get a vote too.”
And others would say, “Hang on. It wouldn’t matter one bit to you what happened at the CWB – you have that high-payin’ job in town. Farming's just a hobby to you. But for us, this is our business – this is our livelihood.”
And I’d say, “You know – you’re right. You have far more at stake than I do. You should get a bigger voice in how the CWB is run than me.” I’d also say, “I don’t get paid that much – I waste too much time on Agriville….”

Only those with an economic stake in the CWB can vote for directors or vote in plebiscites. That’s the rule. Sounds like corporate governance to me.

If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and smells like a duck perhaps you should treat it like a duck.