On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 06:45:44PM +0200, William Drake ([log in to unmask]) wrote:

> > On Aug 22, 2016, at 18:33, Tapani Tarvainen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > 
> > In most elections there's no way to explicitly vote *against* someone
> > in any other way than by not voting for them - you can only explicitly
> > vote *for* someone. And I think that's the way it should be.

> In most elections worth a damn there are competing candidates so
> it’s not an issue.

Perhaps that tells us something about our elections.

But adjusting rules for special, exceptional circumstances is
not good governance. And uncontested elections are, as you
suggest, exceptional. They certainly should be.

> In a noncompetitive election, it is reasonable to
> suggest that people should have some sort of a choice to
> meaningfully express their preferences. If the only choice is to
> accept or reject a whole group of noncompeting candidates it is an
> especially strange election.

That is not the case here. You are able to vote any selection
of candidates you choose and thus express your preferences.
Even if it won't change who actually gets elected.

> I already voted but think there’s a governance issue that merits
> consideration.

Agreed. But not big enough to merit restarting the vote.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen