Fair points.  Of course, our boundless respect for each other's impeccable good sense and flawless judgement means, I suppose, that it doesn't matter how many votes correspond to any one director's voting base.

But then, if we all had boundless good judgement, I suppose we would all be reaching the same conclusions.  That, in turn, would mean that all but one Director would be irrelevant.

Given, however,  that we have a system that is based on membership voting, some degree of fairness and balance does seem to be in order.

We could use a proportional system, as you suggest.  That would make every Board vote a roll call.  Seems highly inconvenient.

Of course, we are never going to get perfect uniformity.  But at the moment the mean voting membership count is about 9700 per Division, and we have 4 Divisions whose deviation from the mean exceeds 3000.  Surely we can do better than that.  And there are other reasons, as Ria has suggested, that we have another look at the Division boundaries.

As for life not being fair, I agree.  But that doesn't mean that the unfairness is either desirable or necessary.

And I commend you for having the [vital-body-part]s necessary to reveal your opinion on this matter !

PS - here are some extra semicolons, in case I missed any ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;