Not interested - I don't care how many shareholders vote this is...

Not interested - I don't care how many shareholders vote this is not an election.
So, if there is a person who nominated themselves to be elected on the board and the current board oppose their selection. Is it an election joewolf?

Sorry, companies need leadership and first past the post makes that clear.
My suggestion doesn’t have anything effect on their leadership.
It purely giving the majority of shareholders a say on how they get rewarded. We are given one vote per shareholders on a merger or demerger.
So why not give the majority of shareholders the right to give their unbiased feedback on whether they deserve the rewards.

Currently, the system allows manipulation by a small number of shareholders who’s company’s reward them, in a similar fashion that they are voting on.

Don't like remuneration policies then get the voters to vote it down - you already only need 25% and 2 strikes.
You’re either gullible or arguing to protect your personal interest to believe 25% rule is achievable by a majority of shareholder!
The 25% rule was set up by the 'big end of town' to placate the majority of shareholders, by duping them into believing that they would have an effective say on the running of the company.
It is generally only achievable if one of the top 20 gets upset!

If the remuneration system is wrong, motivate the changes.
Isn’t that what I trying too do?

Why the fear to even use it as feedback and make the result public. Didn’t I mention that it could be used as in advisory capacity.

It appears, it is a rigged system to act as a disincentive to actively participate in the running of the company by the majority of shareholders.

Radicool Views