On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 03:41:57PM +0200, William Drake ([log in to unmask]) wrote: > Having NOTA for all three candidates as a group seems to > open up uncertainty. I think it is clear enough, and not in conflict with NCSG charter, even if other arrangements might have been better. > By way of comparison, the NCUC ballots always have an [] Abstain > option for each slot, which in an uncontested election means a > candidate obviously can come up short. That works for NCUC elections where the slots are distinct and candidates are explicitly running for a specific slot. It would not work for NCSG council election where there normally are multiple candidates running for a common pool of slots. In the current, special case of same number of candidates as slots it could have been done, but such special-casing is not a good way to do things. > Neither the NCSG charter nor the NCUC bylaws deals in much detail > with ballot mechanics (I don’t know about NPOC’s). Perhaps these > things should be taken up in the respective revisions. Absolute agreement here. Rules should be clarified, either in the charter/bylaws or at least by EC establishing and properly documenting procedures as mandated by the charter. -- Tapani Tarvainen