As no one took the time to answer this simple question posed to the learned Juris Doctor, perhaps you would be so kind, as you raised the matter yet again.
"plurality vs majority won't work"
Kindly explain how changing to majority voting would have resulted any differently from plurality voting in the following instance:
|
Director
|
|
Votes For
|
|
Votes Abstaining
and/or Against
|
|
Carlton M. Johnson, Jr.
|
|
47,635,901
|
|
43,155,665
|
|
Helmut Falk, Jr.
|
|
48,915,455
|
|
41,876,111
|
|
Gloria H. Felcyn
|
|
48,582,583
|
|
42,208,983
|
|
Donald E. Schrock
|
|
67,649,501
|
|
23,100,290
|
|
Dharmesh Mistry
|
|
71,319,001
|
|
19,472,565
|
.
.
Not one of the people opposing shareholder unification is proposing a legitimate alternative
.
I think you'll find that on more than one occasion, not only have I suggested a proxy solicitation as the only viable and legitimate alternative, but also given links to how others have done this, as well as potential costs. Obviously, going into detail fails your "simplicity test"
.
Please, enlighten me in a succinct post. Anything convoluted is not correct. The simplest answer is almost always the correct one
.
I look forward to your reply to the question posed at the outset. A simple "It wouldn't" will suffice.
.
.
.
Be well
