vote counting

[Avri Doria]

As you said 'none' is just one 'candidate' among the others.
Nothing fancy.
No cancellation of a person's vote.

But can only be used in lieu of one person.
And yes, if you think all of the candidates are awful, you still can only vote 'none' once.
I thought of putting in none1 … none4, but decided that was overdoing it.

And while we are speaking of ballots, I also think all ballots should have a write in possibility, but not only do I think that the current software does not support that option, I thought that doing this might be seen as a comment in an election with only one candidate.

But if people are going to discuss the 'science of ballots' before future elections, I would like to put in a recommendation for the possibility of write in candidates.

avri


On 12 Oct 2011, at 16:56, Dan Krimm wrote:

> 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
>>>> 
>>