On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 12:06:44PM +0200, Tatiana Tropina ([log in to unmask]) wrote:

> if there is no threshold then in the future a candidate might become
> elected even with one vote if the election is not contested.

True. Regrettably the election is uncontested. It would have been
better to have more candidates.

This is not the first time that has happened, and I fear it may
not be the last, either.

But if you don't like it (I certainly don't), the way to fix it is to
run yourself or encourage others to run, not give up on elections.

> Can anyone tell me why we need this election *at all*, if we have three
> candidates and three places then?? there is no way to lose for any of the
> candidate with the current voting system. Unless there will be no votes,
> which is highly unlikely in any case because a candidate can at lest vote
> for herself/himself.

True. When the number of candidates matches the number of seats,
all will be elected.

Although I for one will certainly draw my conclusions if
I lose to NotA.

> So, why do we have elections?

First, because our charter requires us to have them.

Second, election results matter in other ways besides who gets
elected: by voting people indicate they support the democratic
process, and the number of votes each candidate gets has a strong
symbolic significance even when they do get elected.

I do not think it would be a good idea to forego elections just
because in some particular instance there aren't enough candidates
to make them exciting.

You can certainly suggest such a change in our charter if you wish,
however.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen