Sender: |
|
Date: |
Mon, 22 Aug 2016 17:08:37 -0400 |
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: |
|
|
Hi,
I do not think Old/New school was my terminology. I differentiate
between current accepted practice and an ad hoc new process. I have no
problem with us discussing new processes for the future, or even with
the EC doing its job and creating well formed procedures with membership
consultation. I would have had no problem with discussing new process
for this election had it been done in the before the election and on a
list instead of just being spring on us. I do not think this was even
discussed by the EC which has oversight over the election process. It
was just done.
I do not think following the accepted process would have changed the
results at all, though I do not know for sure - that is the point about
an election. The election, would, however, have been legitimate because
voters would have been able to make a choice that mattered instead of
one that is being called purely symbolic.
avri
On 22-Aug-16 16:39, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>
> Avri,
>
> Okay I think I am starting to understand where you are coming from;
> basically you are saying that not providing NOTA option to individual
> counselor on the ballot (because that of chair is clear) may not give
> the avenue to factually review numbers of yes against number of no for
> each candidates. So if there are total of 100 votes weight casted and
> their are more NOTA for a candidate then such person will not be elected.
>
> If the above is what you are referring to and if that is the usual
> tradition(which I think you call "old school"). Then it makes sense
> and yes the current ballot would not provide a definite data source to
> achieve that. However one could also assume that whoever voted and
> selected two counselors instead of three is technically implying a
> NOTA for the particular candidate - Although one may argue that it's
> not always the case since one could actually decide to abstain on a
> particular candidate.
>
> Overall I think even though both "old school" and "new school" are not
> clearly stated in the charter, the known devil should be maintained
> until there is familiarity with and approval of the incoming angel ;-)
>
> Regards
>
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
>
> On 22 Aug 2016 23:08, "avri doria" <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> On 22-Aug-16 15:25, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> > 3. If you want just two of the three candidates then you can still
> > just select the two leaving the person you don't want unselected.
> > (ref: from the instructions: Select *at most three* of the following
> > candidates...)
>
> this does not work.
>
> We do not require a quorum, so as long as every candidate gets at
> least
> one vote and as as long as there are only N candidates for N jobs,
> everyone gets elected. It take the choice out of the election to
> remove
> NOTA's function.
>
> The voted NOTA gives a demarcation which someone cannot fall below and
> still be elected. That is why picking NOTA is on the ballot with the
> same weight as a single candidate. One intentionally needs to pick
> NOTA
> instead of one of the named candidates
>
> avri
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
|
|
|