Hi, I do not think Old/New school was my terminology. I differentiate between current accepted practice and an ad hoc new process. I have no problem with us discussing new processes for the future, or even with the EC doing its job and creating well formed procedures with membership consultation. I would have had no problem with discussing new process for this election had it been done in the before the election and on a list instead of just being spring on us. I do not think this was even discussed by the EC which has oversight over the election process. It was just done. I do not think following the accepted process would have changed the results at all, though I do not know for sure - that is the point about an election. The election, would, however, have been legitimate because voters would have been able to make a choice that mattered instead of one that is being called purely symbolic. avri On 22-Aug-16 16:39, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > Avri, > > Okay I think I am starting to understand where you are coming from; > basically you are saying that not providing NOTA option to individual > counselor on the ballot (because that of chair is clear) may not give > the avenue to factually review numbers of yes against number of no for > each candidates. So if there are total of 100 votes weight casted and > their are more NOTA for a candidate then such person will not be elected. > > If the above is what you are referring to and if that is the usual > tradition(which I think you call "old school"). Then it makes sense > and yes the current ballot would not provide a definite data source to > achieve that. However one could also assume that whoever voted and > selected two counselors instead of three is technically implying a > NOTA for the particular candidate - Although one may argue that it's > not always the case since one could actually decide to abstain on a > particular candidate. > > Overall I think even though both "old school" and "new school" are not > clearly stated in the charter, the known devil should be maintained > until there is familiarity with and approval of the incoming angel ;-) > > Regards > > Sent from my LG G4 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos > > > On 22 Aug 2016 23:08, "avri doria" <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > On 22-Aug-16 15:25, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > 3. If you want just two of the three candidates then you can still > > just select the two leaving the person you don't want unselected. > > (ref: from the instructions: Select *at most three* of the following > > candidates...) > > this does not work. > > We do not require a quorum, so as long as every candidate gets at > least > one vote and as as long as there are only N candidates for N jobs, > everyone gets elected. It take the choice out of the election to > remove > NOTA's function. > > The voted NOTA gives a demarcation which someone cannot fall below and > still be elected. That is why picking NOTA is on the ballot with the > same weight as a single candidate. One intentionally needs to pick > NOTA > instead of one of the named candidates > > avri > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus