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