During my years, the only actual resolutions I saw were uncontroversial and practical. Nobody ever voted against them because there was no reason to.
Yes, because all the important decision were made the Watchtower already. The organization is a strict top down hierarchy. Elders carry out the wishes of the Watchtower, individuals do what the elders tell them to do or they are disfellowshipped and lose family and friends. Individuals have no more say in what goes on that employees at McDonald's.
Now on something like a meeting time vote, you will see a lot of split opinions. A few years back, a body of elders in a local congregation put forward a motion to change the meeting time to 7:00 pm from 7:30 pm, and it was actually defeated by about a 60-40 margin.
Wow! That is amazing, you mean that people could actually decide if the meetings start at 7:00 or 7:30??? They should be careful, some people could get carried away and start asking for double ply toilet tissue in the bathrooms, then where would you be? Dangerous, slippery slope my friend.
I would say that if you do not want to donate the chosen amount, then do not vote for it. But your vote cannot override the vote of the majority, simple as that.
Yes, and since the majority are deluded sleeples, the vote will always go where the Watchtower wants. Well, except for when the Watchtower doesn't care, like meeting times.
The publishers also have say in this matter in that the new monthly donation resolution will be based on an anonymous survey of family heads. If you do not agree with the new donation arrangement and do not wish to participate, then simply do not vote or put 0, and your share of donations will not count.
This is also a set up. If you ask people what they are going to eat next Monday for lunch, they will say a healthy salad, if you ask them what they had today for lunch, they will say a quarter pounder and fries. It's human nature to have good intentions as to the future, but day to day reality is often different. People will, at the time of the estimating, think they can donate x amount, but in practice they may not actually have that much to spare. Now they wil feel guilty and feel pressure to meet their earlier, optimistic amount . It's very close to the pledges that most churches do, and there is nothing inherently wrong in the practice, it's just hypocritical in that they have so often condemned the churches for it the past, it's hypocritical that they are trying to achieve the same result in a different way. I also believe the elders will be able to guess who is putting down amount in many cases, especially when someone puts down zero. What happened to "God loves a cheerful giver" and "We don't pressure people to donate"?
Teary is a Watchtower defender who posts on at least one other forum that I know of, often on pedophile issues. He has a right to his opinion, but take everything he says with a grain of salt.
...OUTLAW