Hi all,
Just for the record: I *never* suggested to drop the election, I asked why
we need them to show the flaws and issues in the process. Rhetorical thing.
So no need to put in my mouth the words I never said and never meant.
Yes, we need to have elections. And not symbolic ones. And there can be
many things - like thresholds or the possibility to vote not only for but
against a candidate.
Warm regards
Tatiana

On 22 August 2016 at 12:34, Tapani Tarvainen <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:03:50AM +0100, matthew shears ([log in to unmask])
> wrote:
>
> > Are you saying that not ticking a box is registered somewhere as a vote
> of
> > ambivalence or opposition?  If that is the case how is that measured
> against
> > the ticks?  If not then what is the point when you only have one
> candidate
> > for a slot?
>
> The rules we follow are same regardless of the number of candidates:
> count how many votes each candidate gets, then those who get most
> votes are elected, until the number of available slots are filled.
>
> In case the number of candidates matches the number of slots is a
> degenerate case, as all will be elected anyway, but the votes are
> counted and counts published and thus will work as a symbolic
> expression of support or lack thereof.
>
> You don't need to vote if you don't think that matters.
>
> As I already replied to Tatiana, I think dropping elections when the
> seats are uncontested in this sense would not be a good idea and
> certainly not acceptable by our charter.
>
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
>