As you said 'none' is just one 'candidate' among the others. Nothing fancy. No cancellation of a person's vote. But can only be used in lieu of one person. And yes, if you think all of the candidates are awful, you still can only vote 'none' once. I thought of putting in none1 … none4, but decided that was overdoing it. And while we are speaking of ballots, I also think all ballots should have a write in possibility, but not only do I think that the current software does not support that option, I thought that doing this might be seen as a comment in an election with only one candidate. But if people are going to discuss the 'science of ballots' before future elections, I would like to put in a recommendation for the possibility of write in candidates. avri On 12 Oct 2011, at 16:56, Dan Krimm wrote: > Thanks, I don't object to the inclusion of a none option, just didn't > understand exactly how it would play out in practical terms. > > Your description below makes sense to me, both in the indication of weak > support for reps whose totals were below "none" ("soft" result), plus the > case of the chair ("hard" result). > > The one thing it doesn't quite clarify is if someone votes for "none" but > also includes a vote for one or more actual candidates as well (unless the > system would disallow that combination? -- or would it nullify the > candidate votes in the presence of a vote for "none"? -- I assume the > system currently does not do anything that fancy). The system will just > tally that up as is, but in some conceptual sense it seems > self-contradictory -- at least tricky to interpret ("these two, but nobody > else"? -- but that linkage seems to be lost in the final totals). > > Dan > > > > On Wed, October 12, 2011 1:09 pm, Avri Doria wrote: >> On 12 Oct 2011, at 15:53, Dan Krimm wrote: >> >>> To clarify, if you vote for (say) two candidates plus the >>> none-of-the-above option, that "none" vote does not take your votes away >>> from the two you voted for, correct? It just gets treated as a kind of >>> additional candidate itself, by the system? >> >> yes >> >>> >>> So, in what circumstances could the "none" vote make a difference? If >>> "none" came in first, would no candidate get through, or would it not >>> really matter other than a symbolic protest vote? >> >> >> it would be a pretty good clue that something was radically wrong with the >> choices we had. But yes, it would be a symbolically strong protest. >> >> In the case of the g-council vote, the decision is to pick the top 4 >> people. So if 'none of the above' comes in in any of the top 4 places, I >> suggest that it just gets skipped and the top 4 vote getters become the >> g-council representative. It is just that those who got fewer votes than >> none of the above, will have a clue about how hard they will have to work >> in order to represent the membership. >> >> On the other hand if "none of the above" where to win for the NCSG Chair, >> then my assumption would be for the need for the NCSG EC to either call >> another election or appoint someone to the job. >> >> As a point of information, I have never seen 'none of the above' get more >> that a token vote. And I do not expect 'none of the above' to win either >> of these ballots. >> >>> >>> Personally I ignored the "none" option, but in retrospect I don't really >>> understand how (or even if) it would play into the actual decision to >>> choose representatives. >> >> I always include it in elections since often it is important to register >> that none of the candidates meets muster. >> It is especially critical when there is only one candidate. >> >> But since this is the last election i will be setting up for this SG, if I >> was wrong in including this option, I am sure the next chair will do much >> better. >> >> avri >> >> >> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Dan >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, October 12, 2011 12:30 pm, Avri Doria wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> First the latest ballot will be counted. So if you want to vote again >>>> do >>>> so. Only that ballot will be counted >>>> >>>> Second, the votes you cast will be counted. If you vote for 2, only >>>> two >>>> will be counted. >>>> >>>> Voting for "none of the above" is explicit and is counted. Not voting >>>> is >>>> implicit and not counted. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> On 12 Oct 2011, at 15:13, Ron Wickersham wrote: >>>> >>>>> with regard to the choices on the ballot and how votes will be >>>>> counted: >>>>> >>>>> i just happened to be at my machine when the ballots arrived so voted >>>>> within minutes of receiving the two ballots, but understood that i >>>>> could >>>>> re-vote before the voting period ends. >>>>> >>>>> the choices on the ballot include boxes for the individual candidate's >>>>> names plus a box for none of the above. >>>>> >>>>> i guess it's clear if you decline to support any candidates that none >>>>> of >>>>> the above is appropriate. the instructions of course state to vote >>>>> for >>>>> four choices. but it is not clear if one is choosing to vote for less >>>>> than four if one should also check the none of the above box. at the >>>>> time the ballot was sent not all the candidates had posted responses >>>>> to >>>>> the questions posted to the list. so i voted for two candidates at >>>>> that >>>>> time and also checked the box for none of the above. >>>>> >>>>> i'm wondering how the vote counting will handle this. would my vote >>>>> as now cast be rejected and the two candidates i checked be ignored >>>>> since >>>>> the none of the above box is also checked, or is the vote for none of >>>>> the >>>>> above considered a -1 vote for the candidates i did not select? >>>>> >>>>> or will there even be an accounting at all for those who check the >>>>> none >>>>> of the above box? if the none of the above box being checked has >>>>> exactly >>>>> the same result as sending in a ballot with zero boxes checked, then >>>>> why >>>>> would there even be a separate box for none of the above? >>>>> >>>>> does anyone reading the list know how the votes are actually counted? >>>>> >>>>> -ron >>>> >>