+1 Thanks, Avri. /"...//But lets try and fix this election first. / /*I am still waiting to see an official response from the EC to the appeal*//..."/ While some people are extremely keen to uphold procedures (instead of seeing the need to fix an obvious problem inherent in "longstanding practice"), we also have to insist on procedures: I am also still waiting to see the official response to an appeal presented according to existing procedures. Norbert On 8/25/2016 6:19 PM, avri doria 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