Another loose thread perhaps worth tying...

On Aug 26 01:01, Mueller, Milton L ([log in to unmask]) wrote:

> Seems there is an emerging agreement that to do NoTA properly the
> ballot should have been redesigned. I just want you to know (see the
> minutes) that that is exactly what the backers of the appeal argued
> for strenuously, but for some reason Tapani would not accept it

Just for the record, I explicitly mentioned separate-NotA-for-each as
one possible option during the EC call on August 24.

It was not discussed further, however, presumably because it would
clearly have been deviation from past practice, which is also why
I didn't want to do it mid-election, and the appeal had specifically
requested return to longstanding interpretation of the election rules.
And the rules we are now using are exactly same as in previous two
NCSG elections.

I agree that they are not ideal and we should redesign the ballot for
next election. A separate NotA for each candidate, in effect a form of
approval voting, would certainly be better, even if not without some
problems of its own.

Most important, however, is that whatever rules we have, they are
clear, unambiguous, well-defined and properly documented, and that is
what we must make sure of before the next election. And I will get
that process started in the EC. (Should I lose in the election, I hope
my successor will take it to conclusion.)

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen