On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 03:41:57PM +0200, William Drake ([log in to unmask]) wrote:

> Having NOTA for all three candidates as a group seems to
> open up uncertainty.

I think it is clear enough, and not in conflict with NCSG charter,
even if other arrangements might have been better.

> By way of comparison, the NCUC ballots always have an [] Abstain
> option for each slot, which in an uncontested election means a
> candidate obviously can come up short.

That works for NCUC elections where the slots are distinct
and candidates are explicitly running for a specific slot.

It would not work for NCSG council election where there normally
are multiple candidates running for a common pool of slots.

In the current, special case of same number of candidates
as slots it could have been done, but such special-casing
is not a good way to do things.

> Neither the NCSG charter nor the NCUC bylaws deals in much detail
> with ballot mechanics (I don’t know about NPOC’s). Perhaps these
> things should be taken up in the respective revisions.

Absolute agreement here. Rules should be clarified, either in
the charter/bylaws or at least by EC establishing and properly
documenting procedures as mandated by the charter.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen