I am also waiting to see a response from the EC and as stated on the EC call a definitive simple unbiased interpretation for our members to see and make their decisions based on.
On 25/08/2016, 12:19, "NCSG-Discuss on behalf of avri doria" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I have to confess this explanation seems like obfuscating nonsense to me.
>
>A vote for someone counts in their favor
>
>A vote for NOTA says there is no other that's acceptable and counts in
>no ones favor.
>
>There can be at most 3 votes.
>
>In counting, those with more votes than NOTA are elected.
>
>I figure we can get into the exoterica of different voting systems and
>of which system is better and what all of voting system's deconstructed
>possibilities mean once the EC goes to work to define procedures for our
>next election. But lets try and fix this election first.
>
>I am still waiting to see an official response from the EC to the appeal.
>
>avri
>
>
>On 25-Aug-16 02:42, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> While the voting rules confirmed by NCSG EC yesterday may be familiar
>> and clear to oldtimers and mathematically-minded people like myself,
>> they may not be obvious to all. I try to clarify them a little.
>>
>> In particular the actual effect of None-of-the-Above vote to
>> candidates' chances of getting elected (that is, beating NotA) in the
>> councillor election is not quite intuitive. Chair election is clear
>> enough so I won't discuss it now, and I'm ignoring any symbolic
>> meanings as well.
>>
>> Key point: in the present situation, the only thing that matters in
>> deciding if a candidate gets elected is whether or not their vote
>> count is less than NotA's.
>>
>> With that in mind:
>>
>> In the councillor section of the ballot there are four boxes
>> one can tick: one for each candidate, let's call them X, Y and Z,
>> and one for None of the Above.
>>
>> This gives in effect eight different ways of filling the ballot:
>>
>> (1) Leave it empty - tick no boxes.
>>
>> This has no effect on the outcome, but will be counted as a valid
>> vote.
>>
>> (2) Select only NotA, none of the candidates.
>>
>> This will decrease all candidates' chances of getting elected equally.
>>
>> (3) Select one candidate, say X (but not NotA).
>>
>> This will improve candidate X's chances of getting elected
>> and has no impact on the chances of candidates Y and Z.
>>
>> (4) Select two candidates, say Y and Z (but not NotA).
>>
>> This will improve both Y's and Z's chances of getting elected
>> and has no impact on the chances of X.
>>
>> (5) Select one candidate, X, and NotA.
>>
>> This will have no effect at all on X's chances but will
>> reduce Y's and Z's chances of being elected.
>>
>> In effect the NotA vote will cancel the positive vote to X,
>> leaving only negative vote against Y and Z.
>>
>> (6) Select two candidates, Y and Z, and NotA.
>>
>> This will have no effect on Y's and Z's chances but
>> will reduce X's chances.
>>
>> Again, the effect of NotA is canceling out the positive vote
>> to Y and Z, leaving only the negative effect on X.
>>
>> (7) Select all three candidates (but not NotA).
>>
>> This will improve all candidates' chances of getting elected.
>>
>> (8) Select all three candidates and NotA.
>>
>> This will invalidate the ballot and it will have no effect on the
>> outcome. Invalid ballots will be separately counted, however.
>>
>>
>> The most counterintuitive cases are (5) and (6): if voting
>> for one or two candidates, adding NotA will actually
>> reduce the chances of your chosen candidate(s) being elected
>> (just as much as those of the other candidates').
>>
>> If everybody votes that way, that is, selects one or two candidates
>> plus NotA, no candidate can ever be elected.
>>
>> A simplified hypothetical example to illustrate this:
>>
>> Assume we have 400 voters with one vote each.
>>
>> The assume 100 people vote for X+NotA and 300 vote for Y+Z+NotA.
>>
>> Result: X gets 100 votes, Y and Z 300 each, NotA gets 400,
>> and nobody gets elected.
>>
>>
>> I find this system so bizarre that it actually never occurred to
>> me that it really was the intent in previous elections.
>> Indeed I failed to believe it even when people kept yelling at me that
>> yes, that was the intent. Well, I was wrong. Not for the first time.
>>
>> Good reminder that what someone thinks is obvious may not be so at all
>> to another. And in things like elections that can be dangerous, so all
>> such assumptions should be made explicit and written down.
>>
>>
>> Anyway, this is the system we have, longstanding practice,
>> and we are not going to change it for this election.
>>
>>
>> So, vote - but take care that you understand the real effect of your
>> vote, especially when thinking about voting for None of the Above.
>>
>>
>> ******
>>
>> For the future, however, I recommend reconsidering this and looking
>> for better methods, even changing the charter if need be. Perhaps some
>> type of approval voting, separate NotA for each candidate, or a vote
>> threshold would work. All such systems have their own pitfalls though,
>> it takes care to do them well. I will not go deeper into that now, but
>> I suggest it would be best to define the rules at a time sufficiently
>> far from any actual elections that thoughts of current candidates and
>> strategies will not cloud people's thinking. Of course election-time
>> discussions such as the present brouhaha should be very useful
>> material to review then, so by all means let the debate continue if
>> people aren't tired of it yet. It may prove worthwhile in the end.
>>
>
>
>
>---
>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>https://www.avast.com/antivirus
|
