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

Neal:
I am a bit surprised at how you seem to be interpreting everything I say in  a hostile way. Let's keep focused on solutions to problems, OK? 
I am pointing out the same problem Enrique is, the difference is that I am offering a solution.

> Milton, it sounds like you are envisioning some sort of circumstance in which,
> after the tally of the ballots for this election, someone would somehow intuit
> what people 'really' intended and "reprocess" the results to produce a
> different outcome.  I can't read that as anything other than a suggestion to

There is no "interpretation" involved. If a voter refuses to click the vote for candidate A, clicks the vote for candidate B and C, and then clicks NOTA, then that person is clearly voting against candidate A. If the voter refuses to click for 2 candidates, then the NOTA vote should be counted against both of them, I guess, though in these situations there is some ambiguity. If a voter refuses to support all 3 candidates and then clicks NOTA then it is unambiguously against all 3. 
These are algorithms. If you can explain how they change or misinterpret voter preferences I am all ears. If you can't then stop casting aspersions on what I am proposing.

> make a very significant change in the election procedures and the meaning of
> the ballot.  It is critical for people to understand how their ballot will be
> interpreted and tallied, otherwise they don't know how to vote it.  If you

That's exactly why I am discussing this now. What you seem to have lost sight of is that the results of a straight count of NOTA votes can lead to the defeat of candidates who were supported by a majority of the voters. 

> Using phrases like "each of the 3 candidates generates a 30% NOTA vote" is
> the wrong way to characterize how people should approach this ballot as it is.

No, it isn't. 

> And it also seems highly unlikely under the current circumstances, and not
> worthy of concern.

Maybe. What evidence are you basing your judgement on? I would say a 30% no vote for a specific candidate is not unlikely at all. Whether that occurs for all 3 is less likely, but we don't know. And we have to be prepared. 

> I hope we can all just accept the recently agreed-on election procedure, and
> that we just leave the ballots and the tally procedures as they have been
> clearly stated a number of times now.

Both Enrique and I have shown how this can lead to anomalous results that do not reflect the intentions of the voters. To repeata: the results of a straight count of NOTA votes can lead to the defeat of candidates who were supported by a majority of the voters. It's kind of odd for you to praise Enrique's statements and ignore what he is saying at the same time.