With all due resoect, if you are just going to always vote for whatever the BOD recommends and you think that is appropriate, why evne bother to vote? If you don't vote they just count your votes in the "For" total as an assumption anyway.
From your POV then, why even allow people to vote at all?
It's no "bother" to vote, and I like to let the BoD know that I affirm their judgment and leadership. It's not quite true that they just count your votes as "For" if you don't vote. You have to at least return the ballot with signature, leaving it blank, then they do as you said. But I like to give them a positive reinforcement by filling in the little boxes.
From my point of view, shareholders own the company and are entitled to vote. Shareholders also employ the company management and BoD. When I was a senior manager, I made it a point to not second-guess those who worked for me, except in the most extreme circumstances. So, sure, go ahead and vote as you wish, oppose everything management wants to do if you are so inclined. Or, you could do as I do when not satisfied with management - I sell my shares and move on. It's great having choices.
You should be aware of one thing in your voting: a HUGE bias exists to vote with management--institutional shareholders almost invariably vote for most management proposals, especially for the membership of the Board. Why might this be?? Large institutions want the money management and/or banking business that comes from a large firm like JNJ. Institutions will acquiesce to almost anything that does not appear too outrageous simply because they don't want to disadvantage themselves when they seek to run the pension plan money or the 401k money etc.
I vote against almost all the Board members on the 40 or so proxies that I vote simply because if someone has a real problem, even some of the institutions might balk. In most cases, I don't object to anything. JNJ, however, I currently view much differently.
JNJ has been a great company for years and years. The greatness of the company never shone brighter than in 1982 when Jim Burke pulled ALL the Tylenol off the shelves for customer safety. Ralph Larson also did a great job as CEO of JNJ. I admit that I am not qualified to run a big pharma company. Unfortunately, I adamantly assert that despite a very good resume coming into the job, Weldon did much more damage to JNJ than good--particularly to JNJ's reputation. I hold the Board responsible and believe that any sensible shareholder should vote against ALL members of JNJ's Board. I will also state that with only one exception, the members of the Board are outstanding individuals; nevertheless, as they collectively shirked their responsibility to JNJ's customers, employees, and shareholders by retaining Weldon by at least a year, they should be collectively dismissed. How can you possibly argue with that in good conscience??