A business meeting or group conscience meeting is not a voting urn.
It is a single spiritual entity, which makes a decision by discussion, vote, and substantial unanimity (Concept XII, Tradition II).
This means that the voting must reflect all of the contributions made prior to the vote.
Someone who is not present for those contributions is not making a decision based on those contributions and thus is not part of the group conscience.
It also blocks the group from amending the proposal during the course of the discussion to accommodate the plurality of views and achieve a consensus that everyone is happy with.
A proposal can be drafted and tabled in advance but it cannot be made in advance.
The proposal must be read out and seconded in the meeting before a ballot is actually held. It is therefore impossible to vote in advance, as there is nothing to vote on until the proposal has been formally made.
What is more, when a ballot is held, and the votes, counted, there is still the option for a minority view to be expressed (Concept V). The expression of the minority view often results in the proposal being altered or the decision being overturned completely. Allowing in absentia voting effectively blocks the operation of this vital safeguard against the tyranny of the majority over the minority.
So, no, the vote cannot be submitted in advance.
Further points:
- I've often had a firm view on a matter, attended a group conscience meeting, and, having heard other points of view, in particular observing people's personal, human reactions to the question, I have radically changed my mind
- If I were to vote in absentia, I would not be allowing this vital process to take place
- When I vote in a group conscience meeting, I am voting not for myself but for the group, on behalf of everyone in the group, and taking their interests to heart as much as my own
- If I were to vote in absentia, I would not be (fully) voting on behalf of the collective of human beings: I would be peddling my view
Is there any exception to the foregoing?
No, but there is a remedy for people who cannot attend the meeting.
They can write out their views and have them read out at the meeting. Voting attendees may then take into consideration those views in their own decision. Views with genuine merit will certainly be listened to and accommodated by a well-functioning group conscience.
This is precisely what happens at Conference: Delegates read out or otherwise convey the experiences of members of their Regions, and then the Delegates, as a whole, take these into account. This is the operation of Right of Decision. We delegate decisions to the group conscience, and we trust the group conscience when we cannot form part of it.
In particular, when I know in advance I cannot attend, I am prioritising something else. Now, that something else might be important and valid (e.g. caring for an elderly person or a child), but I have decided that, on that occasion, I am not able to discharge my duty to participate in the group conscience.
The authority to make decisions goes hand in hand with the responsibility to participate fully in the decision-making process (Concept X). If I'm unwilling or unable to discharge my responsibility, I cannot claim authority: that authority must be delegated to the group members who are indeed discharging their responsibilities. If I trust my group, this should be unproblematical.
As attendees and voters at group consciences, we're custodians of God's will in the material world, and that will is a single will: our job in the group conscience meeting is to delve deep inside, having entered into the spiritual entity of that meeting, and listen for that single voice to speak.