Hello Avri,

I think we should take a pause and re-read the scenarios posed by the Chair
very well. The way I understand it, the current NOTA would not be a
candidate(as Rafik puts it) but rather a "TAG" to candidates not selected.
So in the case of the current ballot, if you select 2 out of the 3 names
without selecting NOTA then it means you simply don't want to vote "for" or
"against" the third candidate.

Using another example; if i want to vote against 2 people within the
counselors i will select the one person i want, leave the 2 I don't want
unselected and then select NOTA.

This allows one to be neutral about a particular candidate but have a
definite "for" or "against" position for another candidate.

Regards

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On 25 Aug 2016 12:21, "avri doria" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have to confess this explanation seems like obfuscating nonsense to me.
>
> A vote for someone counts in their favor
>
> A vote for NOTA says there is no other that's acceptable and counts in
> no ones favor.
>
> There can be at most 3 votes.
>
> In counting, those with more votes than NOTA are elected.
>
> I figure we can get into the exoterica of different voting systems and
> of which system is better  and what all of voting system's deconstructed
> possibilities mean once the EC goes to work to define procedures for our
> next election.  But lets try and fix this election first.
>
> I am still waiting to see an official response from the EC to the appeal.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 25-Aug-16 02:42, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> > 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.
> >
>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>