vote counting

[Dan Krimm]

Thanks, I don't object to the inclusion of a none option, just didn't
understand exactly how it would play out in practical terms.

Your description below makes sense to me, both in the indication of weak
support for reps whose totals were below "none" ("soft" result), plus the
case of the chair ("hard" result).

The one thing it doesn't quite clarify is if someone votes for "none" but
also includes a vote for one or more actual candidates as well (unless the
system would disallow that combination? -- or would it nullify the
candidate votes in the presence of a vote for "none"? -- I assume the
system currently does not do anything that fancy).  The system will just
tally that up as is, but in some conceptual sense it seems
self-contradictory -- at least tricky to interpret ("these two, but nobody
else"? -- but that linkage seems to be lost in the final totals).

Dan



On Wed, October 12, 2011 1:09 pm, Avri Doria wrote:
> On 12 Oct 2011, at 15:53, Dan Krimm wrote:
>
>> To clarify, if you vote for (say) two candidates plus the
>> none-of-the-above option, that "none" vote does not take your votes away
>> from the two you voted for, correct?  It just gets treated as a kind of
>> additional candidate itself, by the system?
>
> yes
>
>>
>> So, in what circumstances could the "none" vote make a difference?  If
>> "none" came in first, would no candidate get through, or would it not
>> really matter other than a symbolic protest vote?
>
>
> it would be a pretty good clue that something was radically wrong with the
> choices we had.  But yes, it would be a symbolically strong protest.
>
> In the case of the g-council vote, the decision is to pick the top 4
> people.  So if 'none of the above' comes in in any of the top 4 places, I
> suggest that it just gets skipped and the top 4 vote getters become the
> g-council representative.  It is just that those who got fewer votes than
> none of the above, will have a clue about how hard they will have to work
> in order to represent the membership.
>
> On the other hand if "none of the above" where to win for the NCSG Chair,
> then my assumption would be for the need for the NCSG EC to either call
> another election or appoint someone to the job.
>
> As a point of information, I have never seen 'none of the above' get more
> that a token vote.  And I do not expect 'none of the above' to win either
> of these ballots.
>
>>
>> Personally I ignored the "none" option, but in retrospect I don't really
>> understand how (or even if) it would play into the actual decision to
>> choose representatives.
>
> I always include it in elections since often it is important to register
> that none of the candidates meets muster.
> It is especially critical when there is only one candidate.
>
> But since this is the last election i will be setting up for this SG, if I
> was wrong in including this option, I am sure the next chair will do much
> better.
>
> avri
>
>
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, October 12, 2011 12:30 pm, Avri Doria wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> First the latest ballot will be counted.  So if you want to vote again
>>> do
>>> so.  Only that ballot will be counted
>>>
>>> Second, the votes you cast will be counted.  If you vote for 2, only
>>> two
>>> will be counted.
>>>
>>> Voting for "none of the above" is explicit and is counted.  Not voting
>>> is
>>> implicit and not counted.
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>> On 12 Oct 2011, at 15:13, Ron Wickersham wrote:
>>>
>>>> with regard to the choices on the ballot and how votes will be
>>>> counted:
>>>>
>>>> i just happened to be at my machine when the ballots arrived so voted
>>>> within minutes of receiving the two ballots, but understood that i
>>>> could
>>>> re-vote before the voting period ends.
>>>>
>>>> the choices on the ballot include boxes for the individual candidate's
>>>> names plus a box for none of the above.
>>>>
>>>> i guess it's clear if you decline to support any candidates that none
>>>> of
>>>> the above is appropriate.  the instructions of course state to vote
>>>> for
>>>> four choices.  but it is not clear if one is choosing to vote for less
>>>> than four if one should also check the none of the above box.  at the
>>>> time the ballot was sent not all the candidates had posted responses
>>>> to
>>>> the questions posted to the list.   so i voted for two candidates at
>>>> that
>>>> time and also checked the box for none of the above.
>>>>
>>>> i'm wondering how the vote counting will handle this.   would my vote
>>>> as now cast be rejected and the two candidates i checked be ignored
>>>> since
>>>> the none of the above box is also checked, or is the vote for none of
>>>> the
>>>> above considered a -1 vote for the candidates i did not select?
>>>>
>>>> or will there even be an accounting at all for those who check the
>>>> none
>>>> of the above box?  if the none of the above box being checked has
>>>> exactly
>>>> the same result as sending in a ballot with zero boxes checked, then
>>>> why
>>>> would there even be a separate box for none of the above?
>>>>
>>>> does anyone reading the list know how the votes are actually counted?
>>>>
>>>> -ron
>>>
>