While I agree that our system is open, and that is a good thing, that still does not mean that open nominations precludes the need for other mechanisms. 

For one, as Stefi says, there are many reasons why people might not want to run themselves, and some of them are problematic. 
For another, there might be legitimate grounds for being unhappy with the nomination process - this time around, we had a couple of nominees pull out at the last minute. If we had known they were going to pull out at the last minute, perhaps someone else would have nominated? 
And for another, people might have changed their opinions during the election process itself. 

I’m not personally strongly in favour of NOTA - I think it has value the way our elections are currently set up, but I think the way our elections are set up is sub-optimal. Though I personally feel strongly that if it is on the ballot, it should be a valid and meaningful choice. 

David

> On 3 Sep 2016, at 5:03 AM, Paul Rosenzweig <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Stephanie said: “We don't seem to have any mechanisms to do that [hold our leadership team accountable], other than this NOTA vote.”
>  
> I guess this is where you lose me.  Why didn’t a fourth candidate run?  Or a 5th or 6th or 7th for that matter?  NOTA is a vote against a system that gives you choices you don’t like.  It makes sense in the context of a closed or semi-closed electoral system where the electoral choices are constrained (e.g. by party nominations).  
>  
> But we have as pure an open electoral system as you can imagine.  Anyone could self-nominate and be on the ballot with just one other “yes” from a single participant on this list.  Would not the best way to hold an underperforming councilor to task have been to run against him/her and win?
>  
> In this way NOTA is insidious.  It is always easy to against something.   It’s much easier to say “no” than to say “I’ll run and do it better” or “I’ll support someone else who has a better idea.”  I agree that NOTA isn’t a laughing matter – it’s too negative to be laughed at.
>  
> Paul
>  
> Paul Rosenzweig
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>
> My PGP Key: http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/ <http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/>
>  
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin
> Sent: Friday, September 2, 2016 3:14 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Election propaganda
>  
> I do not regard this as a laughing matter.  In my opinion, this whole episode with NOTA has been about holding our leadership team accountable, to each other, to the membership, and to civil society as a whole.  We don't seem to have any mechanisms to do that, other than this NOTA vote.  Some questions to candidates remained unanswered here, and I think that is a shame.  If people do not think these values are important, please don't vote for me, because I do, and I do not really wish to work this hard for an organization that does not think councilors need to be accountable for their speech and actions.  If you voted for me, there is still time to change your vote and vote for NOTA.  If you persist in voting for me, I can assure you I will not be laughing this off.  I will be pushing for greater transparency, reporting, and accountability of councilors, in all the activities they undertake on our behalf.  If this is not the easy-come, easy-go approach you are looking for in your leaders, vote NOTA, NOTME.
> 
> For those in North America, have a great labour day weekend (everybody else should celebrate it too!!)
> 
> Stephanie Perrin
> 
>  
> On 2016-09-02 5:19, matthew shears wrote:
>> Hi Tapani 
>> 
>> While I realize your e-mail is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I think the time would have been better spent elaborating on your own achievements and most importantly giving us a sense of your vision for the future rather than bad-mouthing poor Nota. 
>> 
>> Matthew 
>> 
>> 
>> On 02/09/2016 06:09, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: 
>> 
>>> Warning: I'm not writing this as the Chair but as a candidate 
>>> in the election. So this is campaigning, election propaganda: 
>>> I am trying to influence how you vote. 
>>> 
>>> Amd I'm going to use the time-honoured means of badmouthing 
>>> other candidates instead of praising myself. 
>>> 
>>> Specifically, I think one of the choices really sucks, 
>>> namely None of the Above, also known as NOTA. 
>>> 
>>> OK, to be fair, NOTA might make a good Chair, at least he has never 
>>> made any stupid mistakes, which is more than I can say for myself. 
>>> And in the Chair election rules are actually slightly weighed against 
>>> NOTA, as in case of a tie NOTA loses. I still think I'd be at least 
>>> a bit better Chair than NOTA. 
>>> 
>>> But in council NOTA would not only be bad, in the council 
>>> election he's got an unfair advantage in the rules, too. 
>>> 
>>> Suppose you like candidate X, don't care about others but 
>>> are thinking whether or not to vote for NOTA as well. 
>>> 
>>> In any situation where it matters, that is, where X is in any danger 
>>> of losing, voting X+NOTA rather than just X weakens X's chances of 
>>> getting elected. 
>>> 
>>> To see this, consider a situation where all votes but yours 
>>> have been counted and X is just one vote behind NOTA. 
>>> (This is the only situation where your vote matters.) 
>>> 
>>> If you've voted for just X, X will catch up with NOTA and wins. 
>>> 
>>> If you've voted for X+NOTA, X remains one vote behind NOTA and loses. 
>>> 
>>> So if you think your vote matters in getting X elected, 
>>> you should vote for just X, not for X+NOTA. 
>>> 
>>> You should vote for NOTA only if you are sure your favourite 
>>> candidate(s) will get elected anyway and you just want to weaken other 
>>> candidates' chances. 
>>> 
>>> Or, vote for NOTA if you think NOTA is *the* best choice and all others 
>>> would be better off losing. 
>>> 
>>> Do *not* vote NOTA as a symbolic expression of dissatisfaction or 
>>> anything like that. That's not what it's now for. If everybody votes 
>>> for their favourite candidate(s) plus NOTA, the election will fail 
>>> totally, nobody getting elected. That would not be good. 
>>> 
>>> And remember, you can still change your vote even if you've already 
>>> voted: just vote again, only the last one counts. 
>>> 
>>  
>