Hi,

One of my concerns in any new scheme we come up with has to do with a
degenerate case  that seems to be a normal case for the NCSG.

That is the case where there are N candidates for N seats.  I think it
important to make sure that there is an appreciable vote for any
candidate, and that someone not be elected if they, and perhaps a few
friends, are the only ones to vote their candidacy.  The misnamed NOTA*
provided such a check.  In the history of NCSG, NOTA never beat any
candidate and never came close, but was generally a significant though
small number.  I thought that it provided a good guarantee against
someone being elected without meaningful support. It gave voting from
among 3 candidates when there were only 3 seats, a significant act of
choice.

I am sure there are lots of complicated voting schemes that are better
than this simplistic one.  But, as long as it is properly understood by
the voters, it does seem to work.  Had someone gotten less than 37
positive votes, though no one was even close this time, that would have
been a significant indicator. Perhaps changing the name of the
mechanism, with a better up front procedural explanation would be
sufficient.  But in any case, I look forward to seeing what we come up with.

avri


* over the years when filling out my ballot, i have thought of NOTA as
meaning, effectively, I have picked the candidates I support and None Of
The (other) Alternatives.  Perhaps NOTOA would have been a better
acronym. At least it would have been one that did not carry the baggage
of another more mainstream definition.


On 05-Sep-16 14:09, Dan Krimm wrote:
> +1
>
> Now is the time to resolve the election issues, while the topic is
> bright in our minds.  Let's not put it on the back burner, but instead
> push through and find the consensus.  We've already had several
> suggestions about how to fix the process, let's continue exploring.
>
> One suggestion that was made was to have a No vote for each candidate
> in multiple-winner races.  There was multiple support for that, but
> also a suggestion that that was not sufficient even so.  Let's
> continue the discussion.
>
> Dan
>
>
> On 9/5/16 12:32 AM, dorothy g wrote:
>> Congrats to all!  and finally we can get to work on fixing our
>> election regulations so that we can have peaceful and transparent
>> elections next time around
>>
>



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus