Where are the 85,000 farmers?

[chaffmeister]

wilagro:

You seem to be concerned that the govt is trying to skew the number of eligible voters. In case you weren't aware, CWB management agreed with the govt on this one...

[rosco]

Jeez Tom, if you farm 5000 acres and need to be in the top 1/3 of prices to make it, you need a career change! I farm 900 acres, my wife works and we get by nicely. With your economies of scale, you "should" be fine! As for votes, I get one, you get one, every cwb active farmer, and those who request "farmer" status get one. What makes you better than me? Bill gates gets one vote. Stephen Harper got one vote. Chuck Strahl got one vote. It's called the democratic process, it's what we live by, and you shouldn't get to weight your votes just because you think YOU are more important then ME!

[TOM4CWB]

Rosco;

So it is just fine for those who don't own our families farm... to take our grain and take our money... just because there are more of you... than there are in my family. We support 5 families on our farm.

So how many votes should we get?

What you are forcing on us is GANG warfare... with a gun at our head... not a free and democratic society.

Ritter had it right (the gun and a smile)...

Communist confiscation will not create prosperity and harmony. Even the Chinese found this out!

[Incognito]

I agree with you 100% Rosco.

One person - one vote.

If you agree with that, how can you support this. Thats why some want weighting. You can't have it both ways. How many other times have you voted in a system like the one below?
And if it is so good, let the politicians adopt the same method.

CWB Preferential Ballot

A preferential vote system will be used in accordance with Regulation to ensure that elected Directors obtain the support of the majority of producers casting votes in the district. Voters will be asked to rank the candidates in their district, in the order of their voting preference, for example, First choice, Second choice, Third choice, Fourth, etcetera.

If, after the initial count, no candidate has received a majority of First choice votes (i.e. – 50% plus 1 vote), a second count will be conducted. This second count involves eliminating the last place candidate from the process and reassigning that candidate’s votes based on his/her voter’s second choice or preference of candidate. This process will continue until one candidate receives the required 50% plus one of the votes.

If a voter does not rank all candidates on a ballot, that ballot will continue to be included in successive vote counts as long as the candidate(s) that are ranked remain in the running.

If a voter does not rank his choices in strict numerical sequence, the ballot will be counted only to the extent that a strict sequence is maintained (for example – if a ballot reflects a preferential ranking of 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, etc. only the rankings of 1 and 2 will be utilized --- even if the ranking of 3 is obvious).

[craig]

It needs repeating. If the CWB claims farmers are choosing their future by voting in CWB elections, then only farmers should be allowed to vote. A farmer by definition should be one who plants, grows and harvests the crop. A farmer is not an third party who crop shares. If it's that important that you feel you need to vote you can always come out of retirement and live in the same world as the rest of us.

[rosco]

Tom, do you mean that there are 5 families that actively take their income from one operation(eg 1 dad, 4 sons, all involved in operations) in which case I think they should have 5 votes, or one family that employs 4 other workers, which to me is only worth one vote. If you actually operate a parcel of land and lay out the money for inputs, make the decisions, take the risks, then you should have a vote. But for glorified hired men, sorry, you don't have a big enough stake in this.

[just_wondering]

I still have a problem with the question of voting at all on what I do on my farm with a crop that would not have existed had I not had the initiative to grow it. There is only one voice that counts, mine.
I understand that with the system that is in place thats the only game in town but your main concern should be when voting in this election is who would be the best manager of my company.
If you chose to belong there will be no plebicite, with the last months actions by the Fed Govt marketing choice will be a reality for the 07 crop year plan for it now.
As far as Toms or anybodies economies of scale don't worry about it, it does not concern you.

[TOM4CWB]

Just_wondering;

I agree with you.

We shouldn't be voteing on what our neighbour does with grain they grew.

Best manager of the CWB Corp. is what this should be about.

And this shouldn't have anything to do about "single desk" issue... it must be about effective marketing.

Administration of a corp. that manages billions... to return the best opportunity/info for a good decision as a marketer on my marketing team.

[wedino]

When did producers vote to implement the single desk? Only vote I'm aware of was canola in early '70s & that was lost. CWB got its monopoly from the war measures act in 1943. Lets end it the same way it was created, a simple stroke of the pen.

[stubblejumper]

wedino you don't remember the barley vote?

[AdamSmith]

Rosco you wrote;

I get one, you get one, every cwb active farmer, and those who request "farmer" status get one. What makes you better than me? Bill gates gets one vote. Stephen Harper got one vote. Chuck Strahl got one vote. It's called the democratic process, it's what we live by,

When Bill Gates is voting for his congressman, he does just get one vote, but when Bill Gates is voting for who is on Microsoft’s BOD, he gets 100 gazillion votes. There are a different set of rules for him to follow when deciding the future direction of his company than there are when he’s deciding the future direction of his country.

One set of rules apply to the computer business, and a totally different set of rules apply who runs the country.

If you believe this is an issue about the CWB’s mandate to be in the wheat business, you have to accept the concept of weighing votes.

If you believe this is an issue about the CWB’s mandate to be in the control business, you accept the concept of one man one vote.

I personally believe it’s the former, but to the cwb and many others it’s the latter.

[wd9]

<p>So, uh, what ever happened to the CWB election task force that looked into the process and weighting of acres etc?
In the meantime I'll be...
</p>

[AdamSmith]

wd9,

I believe it went to the sameplace that you went to.

[GrainVac]

Are we voting on politics or business??? Consider this - I own shares in a publicly traded company, my votes are weighted to the direct proportion of ownership or interest I have in it, it depends solely on my interest and someone who has no stkae in the business has no say whatsoever. In politics, every single Canadian of voting age gets a vote regardless of money, status etc... The CWB claims it is a Producer controlled "business" organization, not Government "political" agency. Which is it? Can't have it both ways. I think it has to be weighted by some measure or else left decided by all of Canada. Why the double standard

[wedino]

Stubblejump, Don't remember, I asked that you remind me in a previous thread, please remind me.