4 BULLETIN 530, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
bility, including the question of their own reelection. No intelligent 
or effective cooperation on the part of the membership can be ex- 
pected under such circumstances and it is not conducive to true and 
continued progress, either in the improvement of risks or in the 
strengthening and expanding of the influence and reputation of the 
company. Members who know litle or nothing about the organiza- 
tion to which they belong can hardly be expected to prove effective 
voluntary promoters of its interests. 
A cooperative organization is logically an aggregation of persons 
rather than of wealth. While many plans of voting based on the 
amount of insurance carried are in use by the farmers’ mutuals in 
different States, it is commonly conceded that the simple plan under 
which each member has one vote for each official to be elected, or for 
each measure to be passed upon, is best. 
A somewhat stronger case is presented in favor of the right of a 
member to cumulate his vote upon less than the total number of 
directors to be elected. For instance, if three directors are to be 
chosen, each member is permitted three votes, which he may cast, 
one for each of three men, or two for one man and one for another, 
or all three for the same candidate. This plan is intended to give a 
reasonable representation to a minority faction, if such faction should 
exist. The plan is subject to the possibility of accident, however, 
unless it is combined with the very cumbersome preferential voting 
plan, and under certain circumstances it may make for minority 
control instead of for majority control with minority representation. 
Such an outcome is doubtless rather unlikely, but it is by no means 
impossible. Under the old plan of one vote for each of three candi- 
dates, the minority faction, if there be one, may be left unrepresented, 
but this is certainly less objectionable than to have the control of an 
organization turned over by mere chance to a minority. 
A provision for votes by proxy, without proper safeguards, should 
be avoided. In a number of farmers’ mutuals it has led to unde- 
sirable results. The vote of a member, as a rule at least, should be 
cast in person at the formal gathering of the membership, where the 
yoter’s own opinion can be expressed, and any such opinion based 
upon misunderstanding can be corrected. In a company with a lim- 
ited business territory such a requirement can not be said to be 
unreasonable, so far as the average member is concerned. Individual 
cases may exist, of course, in which persons with sound and settled 
opinions in regard to the company’s affairs find it difficult or even 
impossible to attend a given meeting. If it is thought desirable to 
provide for these exceptions, and if the laws of the State permit, 
voting by mail, under proper restrictions, may be provided for, or 
proxy voting may be permitted with a close limitation upon the 
number of proxy votes that may be assigned to any one member. 
4 o dod 
