You are correct that the impact of cumulative voting is reduced with the planned implementation (but not eliminated).
But your suggested implementation would completely eliminate the benefit of cumulative voting for member-only seat. Meaning a candidate only wins the independent seat if they can overcome the total voting power of the BoD.
I would say that retaining the benefit of cumulative voting in every election cycle is more beneficial. But it is close. The voting power of Wyndham being the wild-card.
I'm not sure what you mean by "completely eliminate cumulative voting."
The Member-only seat is not impact by BOD voting power, at least as it relates to elections. The issue with cumulative voting arises due to the segmentation of the seats.
Under the Wyndham explanation, there would only be a single unrestricted seat in the odd years. In this case, there is no such beast as "cumulative voting" since you cannot accrue more than a single vote for that seat on a given ballot. Hence, cumulative voting is eliminated.
In the even years, there will only be 2 unrestricted seats. History has shown that the closest thing to an "upset" occurs when there are 3 seats in play, and that it is much more difficult when there are only 2. Therefore, the potential for successful cumulative voting, while it still exists, is significantly reduced.
I would think that my suggestion would at least raise the possibility of electing a 2nd Member candidate. It would still be a slog, but would still be possible.
IMO it was always a pipe dream to wrestle a 3-2 majority away from Wyndham. But the possibility of a "true" 2-3 minority is much more appealing than a 1-4 token presence.
What are you interpreting that I am not?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk