AGMs used to mean something. They were an opportunity for members to hold the executive board of the organisation to account. Votes would be taken at AGMs after issues were debated and awkward truths could be exposed. Directors or Council members or whatever the organisation called them would have to persuade the members under scrutiny their ideas really were good. Members would take real decisions based on the information emerging at the meeting. That was the way it was and, I suggest, should be.

No longer; now the decision is already taken before the meeting begins. The Chair will still go through the motions of introducing debates and allowing members to address the meeting, but the whole process is a complete charade. The few hundred people at the meeting cannot possibly make any impact on the tens of thousands of proxy votes the Chair has received in advance. No matter what scandal might emerge, there is absolutely nothing the members present can do about it. Their votes simply do not count.

Proponents of advanced voting will justify it on the basis of democracy. It gives far more people than those who can make the meeting a chance to take part. They can be heard or have the illusion of being heard as well as the few who actually come. It is a persuasive argument if one considers the purpose of the organisation is to give every member a say.

Opponents of advanced voting also do so in the name of democracy and good governance. They would argue the purpose of the organisation is rarely simply to give all members a voice, but to run the actual project described in the basis of the organisation for the benefit of the members (or other beneficiaries in the case of a charity). Inasmuch as informed participation from as many members as possible aids that process, the more members participating the better, but participation is far more than voting in ignorance as the board requests. Indeed, they would argue it is undemocratic to persuade tens of thousands of uninformed members to pre-arm the Chair with an unopposable majority of votes before anything has been discussed by those trying to participate in an informed way, thus sabotaging any chance of an informed electorate being involved in decisions. It is the hijacking of democracy by democracy. Good decisions need voters to be fully aware of issues. Good governance depends on good decisions.

The ability to hold meetings virtually on-line reduces the need for proxy voting anyway. Since people do not have to spend time or money travelling there is more opportunity for a person or a trusted proxy to attend directly. The only reason for most people not to be there or be represented by a trusted friend is lack of interest in the proceedings. It is now much easier for anyone wanting to take part to do so, so the need for remote advanced voting is much less than in days where a meeting implied a long journey at significant cost and possibly a night in a hotel. Even then it could be argued good governance required decisions to be taken by those who had been able to discuss the issues.

The ironic thing was the Directors in this case opposed the election of an independent candidate on the basis he lacked the necessary experience to sit alongside them on the board, but achieved that result on the basis of the votes of an overwhelming majority who had no experince of the meeting at which the decision was ostensibly taken. If he lacked the experience to take decisions, how did the uninformed electorate have the experience needed to decide?