There's no fear of on-line voting. The issue we have come across at every Section AGM is that the original proposals are often poorly worded and could lead to rules that are not what is wanted.
Here's my favourite example. The TC Section received a proposal designed to limit the speed of the cars. The proposal said "Limit motors to a maximum of 12 turns." (Shows how old it is, that is 12 turns on a brushed motor!)
The idea the proposer had was to use nothing more powerful than a 12 turn motor, thus preventing the then-popular 7- and 8-turn motors sending speeds into the stratosphere. So what is wrong with that proposal?
A maximum of 12 turns means that you can only use motors with less than 12 turns - exactly the opposite of the proposer's intention! After a long debate in which the general mood of the meeting was that this was a good idea, I pointed out that in order to achieve their intention the rule had to say "a minimum of 12 turns."
I hope that illustrates the point. Another one was the proposal this year at the 10th Off-Road AGM to allow Regionals to run without the EB list. That was withdrawn before being discussed, let alone voted.
It isn't the lack of, or fear of the technology needed. It is the practical situation that proposals need discussion where new points and views are raised, amendments can be agreed and then a vote is taken. Straight votes on proposals are the exception, not the norm at AGMs. The number of people who change their vote in light of the discussions is high.
I would be in favour of 'remote' voting if it were for simple proposals that need a simple vote. However, our sport is complex and the people who help to run it find the current system works the best in getting the best rules into the book. HTH
