Originally posted by Mountain Man
View Post
There have been several coherent arguments put forward, but you have characteristically dismissed them with the wave of a hand.
But since someone brought up the shareholder analogy, let's explore that:
Suppose someone regularly shops at Walmart. Because he is a "settled" customer, he demands the same voting privileges as a fully vested shareholder. Let's suppose Walmart considers his request to have merit and so grants all "settled" customers voting rights in company business. Now suppose those "settled" customers start voting for proposals that benefit them but are bad business, and shareholders lose their shirts. As Walmart is forced to reduce the quality of its operation to compensate, the "settled" customers become disenchanted and decide to leave the consequences of their bad voting decisions behind them and start shopping at Menards instead.
And that's why you don't allow someone who is not fully vested to vote.
Comment