Hi all, Just for the record: I *never* suggested to drop the election, I asked why we need them to show the flaws and issues in the process. Rhetorical thing. So no need to put in my mouth the words I never said and never meant. Yes, we need to have elections. And not symbolic ones. And there can be many things - like thresholds or the possibility to vote not only for but against a candidate. Warm regards Tatiana On 22 August 2016 at 12:34, Tapani Tarvainen <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:03:50AM +0100, matthew shears ([log in to unmask]) > wrote: > > > Are you saying that not ticking a box is registered somewhere as a vote > of > > ambivalence or opposition? If that is the case how is that measured > against > > the ticks? If not then what is the point when you only have one > candidate > > for a slot? > > The rules we follow are same regardless of the number of candidates: > count how many votes each candidate gets, then those who get most > votes are elected, until the number of available slots are filled. > > In case the number of candidates matches the number of slots is a > degenerate case, as all will be elected anyway, but the votes are > counted and counts published and thus will work as a symbolic > expression of support or lack thereof. > > You don't need to vote if you don't think that matters. > > As I already replied to Tatiana, I think dropping elections when the > seats are uncontested in this sense would not be a good idea and > certainly not acceptable by our charter. > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen >