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 >