NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Tapani Tarvainen <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Tapani Tarvainen <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 22 Aug 2016 19:33:46 +0300
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (24 lines)
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 06:01:30PM +0200, William Drake ([log in to unmask]) wrote:

> So if not ticking the box simply means the vote’s not counted, one
> literally cannot vote against one without voting against all.

In most elections there's no way to explicitly vote *against* someone
in any other way than by not voting for them - you can only explicitly
vote *for* someone. And I think that's the way it should be.

Arguably it would've been better to have left NOTA off the ballot
altogether, it was only intended to make make it easier to indicate
abstention, but I don't see it causing any real misunderstanding at
this point.

I do see some people want to be able to cast negative votes so to
speak and think NOTA is the way it could be done, but I don't agree
with that.

But we're presently discussing this in NCSG EC and if it decides
that new ballots need to be issued, we will do that.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen

ATOM RSS1 RSS2