As Tapani is speaking as a candidate, not as a chair, I can be less diplomatic than I would otherwise. The following just represents my opinions, which are more motivated by my understanding of how voting works (a subject of long term interest) than any personal interest in the outcome. For what its worth, I think I’m literally the only person in NCSG who absolutely is definitely not able to serve on council with any of the candidates even as a temporary replacement (as I’m the only person who is term limited off for the next two years). 

You don’t vote for NOTA only if you think leaving the role actually unfilled would be better, as Tapani suggests. That is a silly interpretation that ignores what would actually happen. 

You vote NOTA if you’d rather see the process filled by other means, almost certainly in the longer term via a new election, than elect all of the existing candidates for a two year term. But that isn’t the real argument Tapani is here. 

And if you like two candidates and really think a third would be problematic enough that you’d rather NOTA, then voting that 2+NOTA is the most practical way to express that opinion, and really the only way we have. There is a very small chance that everyone feels the same way and you’ll end up negating your vote and creating a new election that you don’t want. But it is much more likely that, in an election with a fairly large number of people with diverse views, you’ll just make the outcome you want more likely. 

The reality is that in every electoral system I know of in use, there is an element of tactical voting - that is, your best choice of vote of how you vote should be influenced by how you think other people are likely to vote. And any example that posits the entire election voting exactly the same to within one vote is tactical voting based on thought experiments rather than reality. If you vote 2 candidates plus NOTA, what you are really saying is that you hope at least two of your candidates are likely to get enough votes from elsewhere to outpoll NOTA, and you are willing to take the very small chance that our imperfect election will deliver an unexpected result. 

Tapani is saying here that rather than vote based on your likely understanding of how most people will vote and how best to influence that outcome, you should vote based on the very unlikely chance that it comes down to exactly one vote. I think that is poor advice. 

Now, this requirement for tactical voting is generally considered a flaw in electoral systems, and one of the reasons is it makes voting more confusing. And the NCSG electoral system is, as its a modified simple majority system, very prone to it (and removing NOTA would only fix the problem for this exact case, it would still happen in other ways). Removing the need for it is a good reason to consider changing electoral systems. But too late for that now, maybe next year. 

I know the reasoning is hard to follow in detail, because our electoral system is clumsy and odd. But its the same basic reasoning that is why in a simple majority system like the US or UK, most people think that you should vote for a candidate that is likely to win rather than a different candidate that is closer to your views (in the US usually expressed as don’t throw your vote away on a ‘third party’, though its a lot more complicated when there are actually more than two parties as in the UK). 

And I would also add - Tapani is right when he says you shouldn’t vote NOTA as a symbolic expression of dissatisfaction. If you want to do that, send a message to the list saying you are dissatisfied or something. But that shouldn’t stop you from voting NOTA as an *actual* expression of dissatisfaction - that is exactly what the option is for. 

Cheers

David

> On 2 Sep 2016, at 1:09 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <[log in to unmask]> 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.
> 
> -- 
> Tapani Tarvainen