Sender: |
|
Date: |
Mon, 22 Aug 2016 17:27:05 +0300 |
Content-Disposition: |
inline |
Reply-To: |
|
Message-ID: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
quoted-printable |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=utf-8 |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 03:41:57PM +0200, William Drake ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
> Having NOTA for all three candidates as a group seems to
> open up uncertainty.
I think it is clear enough, and not in conflict with NCSG charter,
even if other arrangements might have been better.
> By way of comparison, the NCUC ballots always have an [] Abstain
> option for each slot, which in an uncontested election means a
> candidate obviously can come up short.
That works for NCUC elections where the slots are distinct
and candidates are explicitly running for a specific slot.
It would not work for NCSG council election where there normally
are multiple candidates running for a common pool of slots.
In the current, special case of same number of candidates
as slots it could have been done, but such special-casing
is not a good way to do things.
> Neither the NCSG charter nor the NCUC bylaws deals in much detail
> with ballot mechanics (I don’t know about NPOC’s). Perhaps these
> things should be taken up in the respective revisions.
Absolute agreement here. Rules should be clarified, either in
the charter/bylaws or at least by EC establishing and properly
documenting procedures as mandated by the charter.
--
Tapani Tarvainen
|
|
|