I'm trying to focus on the procedures and proposals, and certainly mean no hostility to you, Milton.  I'm sorry if anyone interpreted it that way.  I share some your misgivings on the use of NOTA as specified.  But I think we should to stick to the consensus EC procedural decisions that have been communicated.

I'd suggest to my fellow voters that NOTA is unlikely to be helpful, and may cause problems in the current circumstance.

I think there has been a clear communication of the meaning of votes on the ballot that will be used in the tally procedure, as emailed out right after the meeting:

  https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1608&L=NCSG-DISCUSS&O=D&P=537500

If we want a change in the tally procedure, now is the time to get the EC to rewrite it.  Again, I don't think that's necessary.  But I especially don't think it is a good idea to ask people to mark their ballots based on the official tally procedure, and then have someone, even the EC, count it via a different tally procedure after the votes are all in.  That is a recipe for disrespecting the electorate.

Neal McBurnett                 http://neal.mcburnett.org/

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 04:59:57PM +0000, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> 
> Neal:
> I am a bit surprised at how you seem to be interpreting everything I say in  a hostile way. Let's keep focused on solutions to problems, OK? 
> I am pointing out the same problem Enrique is, the difference is that I am offering a solution.
> 
> > Milton, it sounds like you are envisioning some sort of circumstance in which,
> > after the tally of the ballots for this election, someone would somehow intuit
> > what people 'really' intended and "reprocess" the results to produce a
> > different outcome.  I can't read that as anything other than a suggestion to
> 
> There is no "interpretation" involved. If a voter refuses to click the vote for candidate A, clicks the vote for candidate B and C, and then clicks NOTA, then that person is clearly voting against candidate A. If the voter refuses to click for 2 candidates, then the NOTA vote should be counted against both of them, I guess, though in these situations there is some ambiguity. If a voter refuses to support all 3 candidates and then clicks NOTA then it is unambiguously against all 3. 
> These are algorithms. If you can explain how they change or misinterpret voter preferences I am all ears. If you can't then stop casting aspersions on what I am proposing.
> 
> > make a very significant change in the election procedures and the meaning of
> > the ballot.  It is critical for people to understand how their ballot will be
> > interpreted and tallied, otherwise they don't know how to vote it.  If you
> 
> That's exactly why I am discussing this now. What you seem to have lost sight of is that the results of a straight count of NOTA votes can lead to the defeat of candidates who were supported by a majority of the voters. 
> 
> > Using phrases like "each of the 3 candidates generates a 30% NOTA vote" is
> > the wrong way to characterize how people should approach this ballot as it is.
> 
> No, it isn't. 
> 
> > And it also seems highly unlikely under the current circumstances, and not
> > worthy of concern.
> 
> Maybe. What evidence are you basing your judgement on? I would say a 30% no vote for a specific candidate is not unlikely at all. Whether that occurs for all 3 is less likely, but we don't know. And we have to be prepared. 
> 
> > I hope we can all just accept the recently agreed-on election procedure, and
> > that we just leave the ballots and the tally procedures as they have been
> > clearly stated a number of times now.
> 
> Both Enrique and I have shown how this can lead to anomalous results that do not reflect the intentions of the voters. To repeata: the results of a straight count of NOTA votes can lead to the defeat of candidates who were supported by a majority of the voters. It's kind of odd for you to praise Enrique's statements and ignore what he is saying at the same time.