Happy face,
What may be “not right” to you may not be the same to me too. Moreover, you didn't say why it's not right or why it's wrong. So, I can't just take your words here!

Sorry if my 'complex' mathematical equations made it harder for you to comprehend what I was trying to say. All I was saying was, since the introduction of fee would eliminate some members of the group, each individual vote counts more than before. In other words, each individual vote makes up a greater percentage of the total. So, people who really care what goes on with the organization get to 'say more' to elect their leaders. Of course, the assumption here is that if you are willing to spend $5 to vote, then you do care about the organization/group.

>>Also, If the voting is free, many more people will turn up to cast their votes making the election more effective and efficient.
That’s exactly the reason why I support the idea of having a voting fee. More people might show up but if they don’t care what happens to the organization after they vote then what’s the point? This process eliminates such uninterested members. Why should anyone be allowed to vote if they don’t really care for that organization?

**If it brings you any solace, Happy Face, I think, we should have voting fees in national elections too, starting with the CA elections!