The Globe and Mail reports in its Wednesday edition that majority voting policies and non-binding "say-on-pay" votes are ineffective means for shareholders to voice their concerns on board decisions on executive pay. The Globe's guest columnist Garfield Emerson writes that to exert relevant influence shareholders need the right to vote against the election of directors, not simply to withhold a vote. The 2015 shareholder-meeting season demonstrated shareholder displeasure at disconnects between aberrant executive compensation decisions and median financial performance. For instance, the 2015 say-on-pay non-binding vote at Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce was 57-per-cent against. At Barrick Gold, it was 73-per-cent against. Shareholders are not offered the option to vote against the election of the board's nominees. When a shareholder does not favour the election of a nominee, the shareholder is restricted to the ineffectual alternatives of not voting at all. Without an effective right that results in a vote against the election of a board nominee, shareholders are denied fundamental shareholder rights. Shareholders need to seek substantive rights to nominate directors.