Milton, just to clarify, I did not mean to attack you in what I just wrote (perhaps too hastily). While I strongly disagree with parts of what you wrote, in particular the part I quoted, I share many of your interest and values, and deeply appreciate your leadership over the years.
I appologize if you or anyone takes it differenty.
I just want us to congratulate our winners (remember - they're volunteers!) and move on to figure out how best to work together and get stuff done!
-Neal
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 05:44:06PM -0600, Neal McBurnett wrote:
> First, congratulations to the 4 winners. I'm grateful for your service and wish you all well!
>
> Second, I would like an official statement of how many ballots there were, and how many votes there were (since IIRC some votes from large groups are weighted higher?). That should be part of any declaration of results of any election.
>
> In addition, how many ballots were distributed, and how many possible votes were there?
>
> Next, I agree strongly with Seun's comments. I'm dismayed that Milton continues to send what I take to be divisive comments like this, including incorrect and improper writings like "Rafik.... 77 against", etc.
> This is the time to celebrate the hard-working volunteers who actually stepped forward to serve.
>
> I've already noted that I think a system of proportional representation would make sense for us, as it does for nearly all the world democracies. I posted my suggestion along those lines a little while ago:
>
> Subject: Future NCSG Elections - Proportional methods like Reweighted Range Voting? rules
> https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=NCSG-DISCUSS;ab8b7fc6.1608
>
> Finally, I do wish I knew more about what the NOTA voters actually want.
> Is there someone in particular they think would do better?
> Do they really value selection by the EC as more appropriate than a vote of the whole group?
>
> So as a different alternative than NOTA, I suggest we consider simply allowing people to write-in a candidate for any office.
> We would need rules to decide which write-ins could win, but even if write-ins couldn't win, at least we'd get a sense of what the electorate is thinking. Of course we should be prepared for perennial favorites like "Mickey Mouse".
>
> Neal McBurnett http://neal.mcburnett.org/
>
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 11:28:17PM +0100, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> > Sent from my LG G4
> > Kindly excuse brevity and typos
> >
> > On 5 Sep 2016 10:52 p.m., "Mueller, Milton L" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > >
> > >
> > > Apparently, from the totals Tapani received, 349 total votes were cast. (299 for, 50 against). Now look at the totals for the
> > Council candidates. None of them come anywhere close to 349.
> > >
> >
> > SO: Seriously Milton? You mean over 300 (272 + 37) is not close to 349 OR looking at votes casted, you mean 200+ is not close to
> > 299 (which is that of Chair).
> >
> > > What this means is that many people did not vote for specific Council candidates.
> > >
> >
> > SO: People win elections with less than 10 votes, its still a win.
> >
> > > The problem with this is that we don't know how to interpret those votes. Does it mean that they don't want these candidates
> > elected, but forgot to tick NOTA? Or does it mean that they don't really support the candidate, but were swayed by Tapani's
> > pressure against voting for NOTA? Or does it mean they were just confused when they were filling out the ballot?
> > >
> >
> > SO: I guess the point is that no matter the combination we do in this case, the three candidates beats the NOTA.
> >
> > > Just to give you a sense of how much this matter, look at what happens if we consider the absence of a vote FOR a Council
> > candidate to be the same as a vote for NOTA:
> > >
> > > Tapani: 299 for, 50 against = total 349
> > > Rafik: 272 for, 77 against = total 349
> > > Steph: 257 for, 92 against = total 349
> > > Ed: 214 for, 135 against = total 349
> > >
> >
> > SO: The above still obviously indicate a win for the three candidates. I hope you are not suggesting that a candidate should be
> > declared not elected for getting 135 against (for instance) even though he/she got 214 for. I am not very much engaged in NCSG
> > processes but will be amazed if that indeed happen.
> >
> > > So in future, we must ensure that votes are distinct, unambiguous choices
> > >
> > SO: +1 to this but we should stop speculating the election that just got concluded would have swayed differently. I for one feel
> > the traffic on NOTA and all the discussion about the counselors election reduced the votes of each candidates but hey those are yet
> > another speculation so I will suggest we congratulate the new team and move on while ensuring to fix the ballot in future. I for
> > one like the simple suggestion made by Avri; stick NOTA to each candidate and be done with.
> >
> > Regards
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
|
