Enrique

No this is not how it works. The fictitious example provides absurd results because it is fictitious.

You didn't specify total number of voters, but suppose it's 445 (number of votes for A + number of votes for NOTA)

If there are 445 voters, why did candidate C get only 208 votes? The other 227 votes must have been NOTA votes



NOTA votes only count when you DON"T vote for one or more of the Councilors.

So if C got only 208 votes, he/she is by no means "the most consensual candidate"



You can only vote for 3 candidates. 

If NOTA is one of them, you must not vote for at least ONE of the other candidates.



--MM



> -----Original Message-----

> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf

> Of Enrique Chaparro

> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 12:01 PM

> To: [log in to unmask]

> Subject: Re: *Important* NCSG 2016 Annual Elections - Voting rules

> 

> Please let me recap to see if I understand this mess:

> 1. "NotA" is now being considered a pseudocandidate' running against each

> other candidate, 2. Thus, "none of the above" *does*not* mean "none of

> the above" anymore.

> That will lead us to a concerning paradox in the Council case.

> Let me explain: let's say that the final tally is:

> A - 235 votes

> B - 221 votes

> C - 208 votes

> N - 210 votes

> "C" is not elected (I assume that a new election must be run in that case).

> Now, let's decompose that tally in ('for', 'against',

> 'neutral') voter intents:

> A - 235 'for' - 30 'against'

> B - 221 'for' - 180 'against'

> C - 208 'for' - 0 against

> D - 30 (from A) + 180 (from B) = 210 'for'

> The outcome means that the most consensual candidate is left out, and the

> two more rejected go in (!!!).

> Please excuse me, but this goes beyond the frontiers of the absurd.

> 

> Regards,

> 

> Enrique