The past experiences suggest that what starts as advisory or...

The past experiences suggest that what starts as advisory or informative is just as likely to be hijacked to reflect those who shout the loudest. Apathy towards voting already exists when I go to AGM's I seldom see more than 100 and often as low as 10 people attending. When there are 2000 shareholders it seems less than 30 attend so effectively currently the higher voting stats is because companies approach larger shareholders and ensure they put their votes in. You could likely get a pressure group each owning $800 of shares and for around an investment of $20000 they could significantly influence the board of directors as this is what the majority attending the meeting think. Really not interested Facebook wasnt founded by consensus nor was it run that way - if it was it would have focused far more on social welfare objectives and probably would not have survived. Really this one man one vote idea may theoretically work for countries but it doesnt help running a company. Nor can I conclude that the right set of objectives are addressed when those that shout the loudest get heard the most - that is why change.org gets so much done - is it fair - I would suggest no as those voting are not necessarily qualified to have all the variables. We now live in the age where we are all armchair experts and no longer let or trust those mandated to do the job get on with it.