[NCSG-EL-REF] None of the Above

Grace Mutung'u nmutungu at gmail.com
Tue Jun 27 21:05:08 EEST 2017

Thank you Tapani for the explanation. Since I joined NCUC/NCSG, there have
been so many instances of candidates without competitors. I wonder whether
this is a problem that can be cured by the law (charter) or whether there
just needs to be more awareness to the membership about the elections
Apart from the scenario described by David, to what extent should members
be "satisfied" about the candidate pool if they do not offer themselves for
candidacy? Maybe we should be looking at ways of making sure there are more
people offering themselves for candidacy.....

2017-06-27 17:30 GMT+03:00 Tapani Tarvainen via Election-reform <
election-reform at lists.ncsg.is>:

> On Jun 27 16:19, David Cake (dave at davecake.net) wrote:
> > > On 26 Jun 2017, at 7:42 pm, Tapani Tarvainen via Election-reform <
> election-reform at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> > > The reason most parliamentary elections and the like don't have
> > > negative votes is that minorities should be able to get their
> > > candidates elected even when majority doesn't like them.
> > > Mojority of voters should get majority of seats but only
> > > in proportion to the size of the majority.
> > I don’t that is true at all. Our election is explicitly a
> > muitiple simple plurality process.
> I said "most", not all. Australia is an anomaly. :-)
> OK, to be fair: ensuring minority representation is generally
> a feature of multi-party systems.
> But my point was that this is not an obvious point, and NCSG
> charter is no explicit about it one way or the other.
> > I think the position we should adopt should be one that is practical
> > for use in our existing voting system, rather than based on
> > philosophical goals that are not reflected in our current voting
> > system. Changing our voting system is certainly not a bad idea, but
> > it is probably out of scope and impractical for this discussion.
> With this I agree 100%. Acute issue is what we can and should
> do with our current charter. Systems requiring charter change
> are of only secondary interest.
> And however I try I can't make Robin's proposal compatible
> with the charter. I would invite everybody to read carefully
> paragraph 4.3 or the charter:
> 4.3 Election for NCSG GNSO Council Representatives (size, number, and
> distribution of votes):
> In the discussion below, N refers to the number of seats that need to
> be elected. Optimally N will equal 3 seats in years with normal
> rotation. Any number of reasons can cause this number to vary.
> • NCSG members classified as “individuals” will be given N votes and
> must assign 1 vote to each of N candidates.
> • NCSG members classified as “small organizations” will be given 2N
> votes and must assign exactly 2 votes to each of N candidates.
> • NCSG members classified as “large organizations” will be given 4N
> votes and must assign exactly 4 votes to each of N candidates.
> Despite the somewhat tortuous wording the meaning seems clear
> enough to me.
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
> _______________________________________________
> Election-reform mailing list
> Election-reform at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/election-reform

Grace Mutung'u
Skype: gracebomu
PGP ID : 0x33A3450F
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/election-reform/attachments/20170627/6f934f2d/attachment.html>

More information about the Election-reform mailing list