+1 Paul! everyone had a chance to run as candidate. Why no more candidates were (self)nominated? Warm regards Nuno PS: Tapani, I did enjoyed the irony of your email :) On 2 September 2016 at 22:03, Paul Rosenzweig < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > Stephanie said: “We don't seem to have any mechanisms to do that [hold > our leadership team accountable], other than this NOTA vote.” > > > > I guess this is where you lose me. Why didn’t a fourth candidate run? Or > a 5th or 6th or 7th for that matter? NOTA is a vote against a system > that gives you choices you don’t like. It makes sense in the context of a > closed or semi-closed electoral system where the electoral choices are > constrained (e.g. by party nominations). > > > > But we have as pure an open electoral system as you can imagine. Anyone > could self-nominate and be on the ballot with just one other “yes” from a > single participant on this list. Would not the best way to hold an > underperforming councilor to task have been to run against him/her and win? > > > > In this way NOTA is insidious. It is always easy to against something. > It’s much easier to say “no” than to say “I’ll run and do it better” or > “I’ll support someone else who has a better idea.” I agree that NOTA isn’t > a laughing matter – it’s too negative to be laughed at. > > > > Paul > > > > Paul Rosenzweig > > [log in to unmask] > > O: +1 (202) 547-0660 > > M: +1 (202) 329-9650 > > VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 > > www.redbranchconsulting.com > > My PGP Key: http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/ > > > > *From:* NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of > *Stephanie Perrin > *Sent:* Friday, September 2, 2016 3:14 PM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: Election propaganda > > > > I do not regard this as a laughing matter. In my opinion, this whole > episode with NOTA has been about holding our leadership team accountable, > to each other, to the membership, and to civil society as a whole. We > don't seem to have any mechanisms to do that, other than this NOTA vote. > Some questions to candidates remained unanswered here, and I think that is > a shame. If people do not think these values are important, please don't > vote for me, because I do, and I do not really wish to work this hard for > an organization that does not think councilors need to be accountable for > their speech and actions. If you voted for me, there is still time to > change your vote and vote for NOTA. If you persist in voting for me, I can > assure you I will not be laughing this off. I will be pushing for greater > transparency, reporting, and accountability of councilors, in all the > activities they undertake on our behalf. If this is not the easy-come, > easy-go approach you are looking for in your leaders, vote NOTA, NOTME. > > For those in North America, have a great labour day weekend (everybody > else should celebrate it too!!) > > Stephanie Perrin > > > > On 2016-09-02 5:19, matthew shears wrote: > > Hi Tapani > > While I realize your e-mail is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I think the time > would have been better spent elaborating on your own achievements and most > importantly giving us a sense of your vision for the future rather than > bad-mouthing poor Nota. > > Matthew > > > On 02/09/2016 06:09, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > Warning: I'm not writing this as the Chair but as a candidate > in the election. So this is campaigning, election propaganda: > I am trying to influence how you vote. > > Amd I'm going to use the time-honoured means of badmouthing > other candidates instead of praising myself. > > Specifically, I think one of the choices really sucks, > namely None of the Above, also known as NOTA. > > OK, to be fair, NOTA might make a good Chair, at least he has never > made any stupid mistakes, which is more than I can say for myself. > And in the Chair election rules are actually slightly weighed against > NOTA, as in case of a tie NOTA loses. I still think I'd be at least > a bit better Chair than NOTA. > > But in council NOTA would not only be bad, in the council > election he's got an unfair advantage in the rules, too. > > Suppose you like candidate X, don't care about others but > are thinking whether or not to vote for NOTA as well. > > In any situation where it matters, that is, where X is in any danger > of losing, voting X+NOTA rather than just X weakens X's chances of > getting elected. > > To see this, consider a situation where all votes but yours > have been counted and X is just one vote behind NOTA. > (This is the only situation where your vote matters.) > > If you've voted for just X, X will catch up with NOTA and wins. > > If you've voted for X+NOTA, X remains one vote behind NOTA and loses. > > So if you think your vote matters in getting X elected, > you should vote for just X, not for X+NOTA. > > You should vote for NOTA only if you are sure your favourite > candidate(s) will get elected anyway and you just want to weaken other > candidates' chances. > > Or, vote for NOTA if you think NOTA is *the* best choice and all others > would be better off losing. > > Do *not* vote NOTA as a symbolic expression of dissatisfaction or > anything like that. That's not what it's now for. If everybody votes > for their favourite candidate(s) plus NOTA, the election will fail > totally, nobody getting elected. That would not be good. > > And remember, you can still change your vote even if you've already > voted: just vote again, only the last one counts. > > > > >