I'm very glad that this thread has been opened again.

In a perfect world, most of us would go for a one-man one-vote approach. However if you take a poll at a club meeting (as I did recently) you will find that hardly anyone has ever bothered to exercise their vote for a MAAC AGM. This makes it difficult to get a quorum and it does also open up the way for a small pressure group to exercise inordinate power.

There are other possibilities like selecting/ electing a number of voting representatives in each zone, proportional to the size of the zone.

Faced with the current situation, I see nothing nefarious in what Propworn has done. There is clearly a division of views in his zone and what he has suggested is the logical remedy. If the incumbent ZD has been conducting himself in the manner one would hope for and expect, then he has nothing to fear. The dice are already loaded in his favour. If, however, a large number of zone members are dissatisfied, then they should attempt to obtain redress by either attending the AGM or putting their votes in the hands of someone whose views they trust - which is essentially what Propworn has suggested. Note that Propworn has, very fairly, pointed out that proxies do not have to be given only to him. It has not been uncommon for proxy votes to be given to other than one's own zone director, and often they are given to the ZD from another zone.

Without taking sides in this matter, I have some difficulty accepting the construction that Mr Smith has put on Propworn's actions.

Let's hope that matters settle down to the point where there is no compelling need to charge around collecting proxies. Clearly we are not at that point at the moment.