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 >