Another loose thread perhaps worth tying... On Aug 26 01:01, Mueller, Milton L ([log in to unmask]) wrote: > Seems there is an emerging agreement that to do NoTA properly the > ballot should have been redesigned. I just want you to know (see the > minutes) that that is exactly what the backers of the appeal argued > for strenuously, but for some reason Tapani would not accept it Just for the record, I explicitly mentioned separate-NotA-for-each as one possible option during the EC call on August 24. It was not discussed further, however, presumably because it would clearly have been deviation from past practice, which is also why I didn't want to do it mid-election, and the appeal had specifically requested return to longstanding interpretation of the election rules. And the rules we are now using are exactly same as in previous two NCSG elections. I agree that they are not ideal and we should redesign the ballot for next election. A separate NotA for each candidate, in effect a form of approval voting, would certainly be better, even if not without some problems of its own. Most important, however, is that whatever rules we have, they are clear, unambiguous, well-defined and properly documented, and that is what we must make sure of before the next election. And I will get that process started in the EC. (Should I lose in the election, I hope my successor will take it to conclusion.) -- Tapani Tarvainen