The 'big issue' with the system here is that 'supercandidate' NotA behaves strangely. We can live with that for this election, but I strongly advise against keeping it for the future. "For/against/neutral" systems are used in real life is some cases,[1] but always when there is just one subject to be decided upon. This is not the case: NotA has an interference effect so weird that when the voter expresses lack of trust in one candidate, that negative vote is being transferrec to all other subjects to be voted. I guess that the original attempt was to express something like 1. X | NotX 2. Y | NotY 3. Z | NotZ but the result of the tally will be: 1. X | NotX+NotY+NotZ 2. Y | NotX+NotY+NotZ 3. Z | NotX+NotY+NotZ If we take it with a little humour, we could congratulate ourselves for having designed a non-monotonic election system![2] Regards, Enrique [1] E.g., many decisions in the Wikipedia comunity are taken by this procedure. [2] A system where increasing (resp. decreasing) the number of votes for a candidate *does*not* increase the chances for that candidate to become a winner.