Hi everyone

while listing possible scenarios may help , there may be even more simpler
and straightforward explanation: we got 4 candidates , 3 real persons and
NOTA. NOTA is fictional candidate but still a candidate.

with the current ballot you can select up to 3 among the 4 choices in
whatever order you want. You can also choose to not select any  candidate
if you want. The only prohibited case is to select all 4 candidates.

NOTA provides something interesting and I would say rare in election. While
we are in uncontested election as seen per many, NOTA as candidate provides
the opportunity to express opposition to 1, 2 or all candidates.

what counts is the final vote count at the end of voting period. if NOTA
has more votes than 1 or more candidates, it is an indication that 1 or
more candidates couldn't get enough support within NCSG voters and so
cannot be really representative.

You can change your vote/ballot whenever you want till the end of the
voting period. The last choice will be counted.

We will also receive reminders to cast ballot to encourage everyone to vote.

hope that helps.

Best,

Rafik


2016-08-25 15:42 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen <[log in to unmask]>:

> 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.
>
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
>