Dr. Sinecure,
Interesting points, and it is confusing. I've been giving the adjournment question some thought since I made my post. To me, the issue comes down to the reason shares not voted are counted as a no vote, and why there is an option to adjourn a meeting. With a yes/no vote this important, the issue should be decided by the majority of the total shares eligible. The end result of the vote should be a clear majority voting either in favor of or against the R/S. Any other decision will have problems. I think having the shares not voted counting as a "no" ensures that the majority of the shares must be in favor of the R/S before the proposal can pass. To balance out that automatic "no", the option to adjourn and encourage non-voters to vote ensures that the R/S proposal can not be defeated without the majority of the shares actually voting against. The largest minority of possible votes cast can not "win". It must be a majority of the total possible votes to decide. If it is either a majority on the first vote, or if the number of non-votes is less than the number of additional votes needed to pass the R/S, there wouldn't be any purpose in adjourning. (That assumes the "no" vote is broken down between those actually voted and the non-votes.)
AI
