[EC-NCSG] QUICK: Ballot question

[Joan Kerr]

Hi Tapani, All

I am in total agreement, that we make the procedure for the next election
explicit.  I don't see any reason to issue new ballots.
Joan

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <
ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 09:16:01AM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org)
> wrote:
>
> > NOTA has not defeated any candidate yet, but every candidate is
> > running against NOTA. This has been the clear meaning for several
> > years and was why we started to include NOTA on the ballots years
> > ago.
>
> Absent a formal decision somewhere I don't find that persuasive.
>
> If the intent was that, unlike in any normal election I can think of,
> there should be a way to cast negative votes rather than just abstain
> from voting candidates you don't like, there should be an explicit
> rule, formally decided, to that effect. Not just recollections of
> oldtimers of how it was meant to be.
>
> For the next election let's make an explicit, properly decided
> procedure. But now, I still don't see a good enough reason to
> issue new ballots, and I don't see anybody agreeing with you
> that it should be done, either.
>
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
>
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160822/2beb4f81/attachment.html>