Hi, One of my concerns in any new scheme we come up with has to do with a degenerate case that seems to be a normal case for the NCSG. That is the case where there are N candidates for N seats. I think it important to make sure that there is an appreciable vote for any candidate, and that someone not be elected if they, and perhaps a few friends, are the only ones to vote their candidacy. The misnamed NOTA* provided such a check. In the history of NCSG, NOTA never beat any candidate and never came close, but was generally a significant though small number. I thought that it provided a good guarantee against someone being elected without meaningful support. It gave voting from among 3 candidates when there were only 3 seats, a significant act of choice. I am sure there are lots of complicated voting schemes that are better than this simplistic one. But, as long as it is properly understood by the voters, it does seem to work. Had someone gotten less than 37 positive votes, though no one was even close this time, that would have been a significant indicator. Perhaps changing the name of the mechanism, with a better up front procedural explanation would be sufficient. But in any case, I look forward to seeing what we come up with. avri * over the years when filling out my ballot, i have thought of NOTA as meaning, effectively, I have picked the candidates I support and None Of The (other) Alternatives. Perhaps NOTOA would have been a better acronym. At least it would have been one that did not carry the baggage of another more mainstream definition. On 05-Sep-16 14:09, Dan Krimm wrote: > +1 > > Now is the time to resolve the election issues, while the topic is > bright in our minds. Let's not put it on the back burner, but instead > push through and find the consensus. We've already had several > suggestions about how to fix the process, let's continue exploring. > > One suggestion that was made was to have a No vote for each candidate > in multiple-winner races. There was multiple support for that, but > also a suggestion that that was not sufficient even so. Let's > continue the discussion. > > Dan > > > On 9/5/16 12:32 AM, dorothy g wrote: >> Congrats to all! and finally we can get to work on fixing our >> election regulations so that we can have peaceful and transparent >> elections next time around >> > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus