Wheat Growers and weighted voting?

[agstar77]

Who were they angry at , the fertilizer producers , the railways? L.O.L.

[Kodiak]

Jensend,

I'm still trying to understand what principle underpins your reasoning. When the two of us vote in a general election we get one vote each. You're OK with that I presume. So am I. General elections are anchored by a tradition of democracy where the principle of one vote per citizen goes way back to the ancient Greeks. Democracy is about freedom, liberty and equality under the law. Look up just about any definition or history of democracy, and you’ll see there are principles that are inalienable.

Now let’s say there is a vote on a different matter. For example, it’s lets say it’s NOT about how we govern ourselves in a democracy. Let’s say you and I are both part owners of an apple orchard. There are 100 shares in this business. You own 70, you own 20 jointly with your brother-in law, and I own 10. When decisions are required (let's say one of us wants to cut down the apple trees and plant g****s) do we each get one vote? I want to know if you would consider that to be the correct voting structure - and is it fair to you?

[Kodiak]

chuckChuck, you started this thread. Weigh in on my questions. I think they're pertinent to your discussion.

[Fransisco]

They certainly couldn't be angry about...

final pool returns $30 a tonne below the average open market price,

outrageous basis levels in the PPO's,

only being able to use the fixed price contract until the end of October,

transportation costs for board grains being substantially higher than canola,

and the board not wanting to sell the entire crop.

These are all wondrous miricles to celebrate! Right agstar?

[charliep]

Kodiak

I thought you asked the most interesting and relevant question.

Quote from above - "Before I can comment on the CWB voting structure, I need to understand something. Is the CWB a governing and policy making organization, or is it a commercial entity?"

Perhaps the most interesting way forward would be the elimination of government guarantees and the establishment of a contingency fund/equity ownership by farmers. Voting structure would be based on equity ownership/financial interest. The CWB would be held accountable for money moving in and out of the contingency fund by its owners - farmers.

[charliep]

Will highlight the following old documents from 2006 and 2007.

http://www.cwb.ca/public/en/hot/choice/harvesting/pdf/harvesting_opp_0806.pdf

http://www.agr.gc.ca/cb/index_e.php?s1=ip&page=ip61030a

[craig]

Chuck Jensend
I would throw the question back at you. Do you think the CWB elections are fair and equitable when we consider the following. First there are many producers or farms who have more than one permit book. Is it fair that they have more than one vote. Second we have a system that allows non farmers to vote in CWB elections. There is no indication of what percentage that represents in the election although we do know there are way more voters eligible than actually farm in any given area. So before you criticize someone elses voting system, you need to clean up the one currently being used by the CWB. Until such time it is hard to believe any board election is reflective of true farmer views.