Talk:Proxy voting

message: I am planning to write an article on shareholder voting, which is widely, if imprecisely, known as proxy voting. (At least the first 50 hits for "proxy voting" on Google are about shareholder voting.) It seems that "proxy voting" should land on a page about shareholder voting and a disambiguation should lead to a page about proxy voting in the sense of delegated voting.  Andropod (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I support this, but have you written such an article? What about including all associated vocabulary such as "proxy paper", proxy holder", as well? A google search seems to indicate you have not. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Shareholder voting

message: Can anyone provide more information on rationales for prohibiting proxy voting? 129.174.54.189 (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One argument might be that if council members, for example, can freely proxy out their vote to other members, they may get in the habit of not showing up, and the council will be plagued by irregular attendance, which will in turn make deliberations less coherent. This isn't an argument that I find especially important, but it's one that I've heard. --Hermitage (talk) 10:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons why proxy voting is prohibited

message: I added to the article:
:In 1912, the People's Power League proposed an amendment to the Oregon Constitution to allow each legislator to cast a number of votes equal to the number of votes he received in the last election. Thus, a legislator who received 25,000 votes would have had more voting power than two legislators who received 12,000 votes apiece. A majority of all the votes cast at the preceding election would have been required to pass a law. This proposal would have abolished the Oregon Senate and placed the state's legislative power in a single assembly of sixty members serving four-year terms.  The Governor of Oregon and his defeated rivals would have been ex officio members of the Assembly representing voters whose candidate was defeated. If a Socialist legislative candidate were defeated, for instance, then the votes of his supporters would have been cast in the Assembly by the Socialist candidate for Governor.
Is this really a form of proxy voting, or could this better be described as interactive representation? (See Bill Redpath's description of the latter at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveonline/01/metro/metro_redpath101201.htm ) Ron Duvall (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proxy voting vs. interactive representation

message: Should there be some mention of the thoughts behind "liquid democracy" as it relates to proxy voting? Liquid Democracy redirects here, and in quotations (as liquid democracy occurring together) it gets over one thousands hits on google. I think the word should at least be mentioned in the article as another term that has gained current use. Nagelfar (talk) 06:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the difference between liquid democracy and delegated voting? --Explodicle (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They are one and the same. Chin Chill-A Eat Mor Rodents (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to bring this issue up again. If the term proxy-voting stands for the delegation of votes through proxies (by principals) and the term liquid democracy stands for the notion that the vote is "cast" continuously (in other words that voters is represented continuously until stated otherwise), the two terms are strictly not the same and so they should be split up. Right? Jensep (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I develop tools for continuous casting. We might mention the technique, but I don't think we should label it as "liquid democracy". It's a non-technical term that's loaded with other connotations. ~Michael Allantalk 14:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

text: True. I just wasn't aware that proxy-voting and liquid democracy as such could be seen as the same. Thanks for the reply :) Jensep (talk) 11:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yet you suggest that continuous casting and liquid democracy could be seen as the same, and I was answering to that.  If the definition of liquid democracy appears to depend on the technique of continuous casting, then it also appears to depend on recursive delegation, or proxy voting.  What else?  It's a neologism of Armytage's that's become something of a buzz word in Germany, but failed to catch on elsewhere.  I am told the phonetics of the English word "liquid" are appealing to the German ear.  I see 143,000 Google hits for German pages, but only 27,300 for English.  That might make for an interesting footnote, but is there evidence of anything more to it? ~Michael Allantalk 18:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Well somehow we might discuss two different things then :) My apologies if I'm not well read in the field. On thing that liquid democracy could consist of is definitely, as you mentioned, continuous casting. But what about "continuous representation"? In essence the proxy-idea where the principals delegate their votes to a proxy, but where the members of the parliament would be changed whenever a member receives more votes than the representative with the least votes. In other words the parliament would always consist of the members with the most number of "votes" represented. This would be different from the proxy voting concept because proxy-voting doesn't prescribe what happens at the parliamentary level. But I guess it boils down to whether or not you would characterize that as continuous casting. Jensep (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  You propose an electoral method, specifically for constituting an assembly.  Maybe it could be called "liquid democracy" or "liquid legislature".  Normally I'd ask you some questions about that, Jensep, because it interests me.  But this might not be the place.  Could you post your proposal (or interpretation) to one of the lists I follow? ~Michael Allantalk 22:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

text:  I wasn't aware this was a "new" method, but I'll try and post it on one of the lists. Thanks for taking your time to comment. Jensep (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Liquid Democracy?" 

message: I'm pretty sure that footnotes 2-14 are legal citations, but to be very honest I'm not quite sure how to find the texts that they indicate. Perhaps I'm just backward in this sense, but if anyone with good lawyerly research skills could tell me how to do this, I'd appreciate it. It seems like a nice skill to have. On the other hand, if no one knows where to find this stuff, I'm not sure that the citations are very helpful. --Hermitage (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tagged the article as needing attention from a legal expert. I don't think we should remove anything until we hear from one of them that these references are bogus. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal citations

message: A large number of edits to this article by a banned user were reverted by User:Sarcasticidealist. Such an action is within his proper discretion, any can, in general, revert edits by banned users on sight. However, the edits to this article seem to have been made as good faith efforts to improve this article. While I have not reviewed and checked every source, and I've seen at least one edit that contained something probably not sufficiently supported by source -- even though it's "true" -- I'm going to restore them en masse, because it is probably more efficient, and I didn't see anything actually harmful. I will, as I have time, review the edits individually and fix problems, and others are invited to do so as well. I notice that he mentioned me, personally, as a worker on the concept of delegated voting or delegable proxy, as I called it. I don't think it was sourced, nor am I aware of any RS on this, so, unless I missed the source, I'll take that one out for starters. --Abd (talk) 13:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by blocked user. 

message: This section has a LOT of problems. The citations probably make sense to lawyers, but not to anyone else. Also, it's not clear exactly what it applies to - corporate voting, legislature, proxies in general? Generally it reads like it was copied wholesale from some legal source. I would support deleting entirely unless someone can rewrite it so that its meaning is clear. --Helenalex (talk) 09:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  US law on proxies 

message: Whoever deleted the entire representative direct democracy article and redirected it to here needs to undo what they did. Representative direct democracy is totally different than proxy voting. If the Unites States had a national initiative/referendum system that would be representative direct democracy. THERE WOULD BE NO PROXY VOTING INVOLVED. Please undo those changes and reinstate that deleted article. It's nothing short of vandalism. Jiminezwaldorf (talk) 11:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I performed the redirect. The article previously described a proxy voting system, but after discussing it for a month we couldn't find any reliable sources to establish this for certain. If you can provide sources, I will reinstate the article. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Someone needs to fix what they've done

message: Can a proxy choose not to cast the vote that was entrusted to him by the principle? 
Also, if the method of voting is either in person or by proxy, and if the “quorum” requirement is therefore the minimum required number of Members “present, either in person or by proxy,” then if the method of voting is either in person or by proxy or by written vote delivered by mail, is the quorum requirement therefore the minimum number of Members present, either in person or by proxy or by written vote delivered by mail? Doesn’t a quorum requirement have to reflect the method of voting? 
If a Member can be present by proxy without being present in person, then can’t a Member be present by written vote delivered by mail without being present in person? When absentee voting is allowed, whether by proxy or by written vote delivered by mail, isn’t the presence of the absent Member felt at the Members meeting by the casting of his absentee vote, regardless of whether it is cast by proxy or whether it is cast by written vote delivered by mail? 7Jim7 (talk) 11:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The answers to your questions will vary based on the organization in which you are voting, since there are no global proxy voting rules. Someone who is familiar with the bylaws of your organization would give you the best answer. You might also want to check out the Wikipedia reference desk, which is intended for questions and answers. This page is for plans to improve the article itself. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: A new editors has just added an entire section on communicative delegation.  This appears to be a minor, iterated twist on the conventional proxy voting.  Unfortuantely, the section is entirely without sources.  There are no relevant Google hits for the term "communicative delegation".  The editor that added the section appears to have also written a piece of software to implement this variant.
Unless someone can provide some independent, reliable sources which discuss this term and its meaning, I will remove this section. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it myself, until I find some proper sources. --ThomasvonderElbe (talk) 09:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Communicative delegation 

message: Would anyone object if I removed the "asset voting" section? We don't have any reliable sources that use the term and there are no actual implementations of this system anywhere. Including this section gives the concept undue weight in relation to proxy voting. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There was at least one implementation.  I've asked them for cite-able sources. ~Michael Allantalk 11:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that the section on 'Asset voting' has now been removed from this article, but Asset voting still redirects here. That's not a good arrangement. I don't mind the section being removed, if it lacks coverage in reliable sources, but in that case the redirect should be deleted as well. Robofish (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I say we restore asset-voting. It seems like the best way to create a proportional legislature.  It certainly beats STV.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.233.65 (talk) 03:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Asset voting" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Proxy voting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080128155800/http://www.foe.org:80/international/shareholder/solicitation.html to http://www.foe.org/international/shareholder/solicitation.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Proxy voting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110713184434/http://larson2008.com/wiki/index.php5?title=Proxy_voting to http://larson2008.com/wiki/index.php5?title=Proxy_voting
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Proxy voting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.elections.ca/loi/com2000/Voting/vot06_e.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110117185354/http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk:80/register_to_vote/british_citizens_living_abroad.aspx to http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/register_to_vote/british_citizens_living_abroad.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080411094628/http://www.lpboulder.com/newsletters/jun05-convention.pdf to http://www.lpboulder.com/newsletters/jun05-convention.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lpcolorado.org/convention/2006minutes.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101128130259/http://www.econ.ucsb.edu:80/~armytage/proxy2010.pdf to http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~armytage/proxy2010.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090324075522/http://proxydemocracy.org:80/ to http://www.ProxyDemocracy.org
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101128130259/http://www.econ.ucsb.edu:80/~armytage/proxy2010.pdf to http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~armytage/proxy2010.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Proxy voting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.whfreeman.com/college/pdfs/comappdfs/CoMap_c11.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080317025214/http://jagan.org/articles5i.htm to http://jagan.org/articles5i.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/register_to_vote/british_citizens_living_abroad.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080316052802/http://www.rochdale.gov.uk/council_and_democracy/councillors%2C_democracy_and_ele/elections_-_voting.aspx to http://www.rochdale.gov.uk/council_and_democracy/councillors%2C_democracy_and_ele/elections_-_voting.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080411094628/http://www.domini.com/common/pdf/ProxyVotingGuidelines.pdf to http://www.domini.com/common/pdf/ProxyVotingGuidelines.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080316192547/http://www.iccr.org/news/press_releases/2008/pr_proxybook011508.htm to http://www.iccr.org/news/press_releases/2008/pr_proxybook011508.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080316110429/http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=710 to http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=710
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.beyondpolitics.org/Beyond_Politics_Intro.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~armytage/proxy2010.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://proxydemocracy.org/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~armytage/proxy2010.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Let's say the reader wants to know:
:Can I have my mom vote for me? She's much more aware of the issues  affecting the nation (USA, IL), so how about she does the hard work of voting for me while I stay at home and watch television? Would that be okay?
Anyway, without simple tables, it's very hard to find out the answer to this question from the article.
In  fact, the whole concept of having one's parent etc. vote for them apparently is so far out in the universe that isn't even considered in the article.
Jidanni (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: OK it turns out "it's a goofy idea because it's patently illegal. Nobody can vote IN PLACE OF ANYBODY" (in U.S. elections). So the article should make this clear. Jidanni (talk) 03:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can I have my mom vote for me?