Hi,

I do not think Old/New school was my terminology.  I differentiate
between current accepted practice and an ad hoc new process.  I have no
problem with us discussing new processes for the future, or even with
the EC doing its job and creating well formed procedures with membership
consultation.  I would have had no problem with discussing new process
for this election had it been done in the before the election and on a
list instead of just being spring on us.  I do not think this was even
discussed by the EC which has oversight over the election process.  It
was just done.

I do not think following the accepted process would have changed the
results at all, though I do not know for sure - that is the point about
an election. The election, would, however, have been legitimate because
voters would have been able to make a choice that mattered instead of
one that is being called purely symbolic.

avri

On 22-Aug-16 16:39, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>
> Avri,
>
> Okay I think I am starting to understand where you are coming from;
> basically you are saying that not providing NOTA option to individual
> counselor on the ballot (because that of chair is clear) may not give
> the avenue to factually review numbers of yes against number of no for
> each candidates. So if there are total of 100 votes weight casted and
> their are more NOTA for a candidate then such person will not be elected.
>
> If the above is what you are referring to and if that is the usual
> tradition(which I think you call "old school"). Then it makes sense
> and yes the current ballot would not provide a definite data source to
> achieve that. However one could also assume that whoever voted and
> selected two counselors instead of three is technically implying a
> NOTA for the particular candidate - Although one may argue that it's
> not always the case since one could actually decide to abstain on a
> particular candidate.
>
> Overall I think even though both "old school" and "new school" are not
> clearly stated in the charter, the known devil should be maintained
> until there is familiarity with and approval of the incoming angel ;-)
>
> Regards
>
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
>
> On 22 Aug 2016 23:08, "avri doria" <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>     On 22-Aug-16 15:25, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>     > 3. If you want just two of the three candidates then you can still
>     > just select the two leaving the person you don't want unselected.
>     > (ref: from the instructions: Select *at most three* of the following
>     > candidates...)
>
>     this does not work.
>
>     We do not require a quorum, so as long as every candidate gets at
>     least
>     one vote and as as long as there are only N candidates for N jobs,
>     everyone gets elected. It take the choice out of the election to
>     remove
>     NOTA's function.
>
>     The voted NOTA gives a demarcation which someone cannot fall below and
>     still be elected.  That is why picking NOTA is on the ballot with the
>     same weight as a single candidate. One intentionally needs to pick
>     NOTA
>     instead of one of the named candidates
>
>     avri
>
>
>     ---
>     This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>     https://www.avast.com/antivirus <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus