Tapani, thanks a lot for your answers.
I wrote my email because it seems that there was not enough understanding
why the current process has flaws. I think from your email it is clear now
that the process has serious issues.
I do not think it is a right thing to say that it's ok that if we have
three candidates for three seats all of them will be elected and shrug our
shoulders about this.
I personally never voted in GNSO elections before so I didn't know about
the flaws in this process, and I assume some people didn't know too. And of
course we didn't know that the only way to fix this process is to run as
the 4th or 5th candidate.
I bring up again the issue brought by James and Matt: the process is not
due and needs to be fixed.
Warm regards
Tatiana

On 22 August 2016 at 12:22, Tapani Tarvainen <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 12:06:44PM +0200, Tatiana Tropina (
> [log in to unmask]) wrote:
>
> > if there is no threshold then in the future a candidate might become
> > elected even with one vote if the election is not contested.
>
> True. Regrettably the election is uncontested. It would have been
> better to have more candidates.
>
> This is not the first time that has happened, and I fear it may
> not be the last, either.
>
> But if you don't like it (I certainly don't), the way to fix it is to
> run yourself or encourage others to run, not give up on elections.
>
> > Can anyone tell me why we need this election *at all*, if we have three
> > candidates and three places then?? there is no way to lose for any of the
> > candidate with the current voting system. Unless there will be no votes,
> > which is highly unlikely in any case because a candidate can at lest vote
> > for herself/himself.
>
> True. When the number of candidates matches the number of seats,
> all will be elected.
>
> Although I for one will certainly draw my conclusions if
> I lose to NotA.
>
> > So, why do we have elections?
>
> First, because our charter requires us to have them.
>
> Second, election results matter in other ways besides who gets
> elected: by voting people indicate they support the democratic
> process, and the number of votes each candidate gets has a strong
> symbolic significance even when they do get elected.
>
> I do not think it would be a good idea to forego elections just
> because in some particular instance there aren't enough candidates
> to make them exciting.
>
> You can certainly suggest such a change in our charter if you wish,
> however.
>
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
>