Result for vote regarding new members for the board of directors

[Sven Luther]

On Sat, Feb 22, 2003 at 02:56:42PM -0500, Branden Robinson / SPI Treasurer wrote:
> [CCing Wichert because I have a recommedation on ballot instructions.]
> 
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2003 at 02:11:41PM -0500, Lukas Geyer wrote:
> > I see some votes which list only one option.
> 
> I see five: 33, 46, 67, 85, and 93[1].
> 
> > As I understood the voting guidelines, this effectively amounts to
> > abstaining.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > On the other hand,
> > it is quite clear that the intent of those voters was different and
> > that they probably did not understand the details of the voting
> > procedure (or read the instructions...).
> 
> SPI members are not Floridians.  We can expect basic literacy from them.
> I suggest making future ballots more clear, perhaps with boldface text:
> 
>   VOTING FOR ONE OPTION ONLY IS EQUIVALENT TO ABSTAINING.  YOU MUST RANK
>   AT LEAST TWO OPTIONS FOR YOUR BALLOT TO AFFECT THE OUTCOME.
> 
>   RANK ALL OPTIONS TO ENSURE THAT YOUR BALLOT HAS THE MOST EFFECT.
> 
> I strongly suggest that we do *not* try to interpret the five
> aforementioned ballots under special rules that apply only to them.  I
> doubt that they'd affect the outcome, anyway.

Err, 

Citing yourself on Thu, 06 Feb 2003 16:48:12 +0100 :
|
| On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 07:25:17AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
| > I suppose not voting for all 8 candidate (that is providing a string
| > with less than 8 characters) will result in "none of the above" to rank
| > higher than the candidates not figuring in the string, right ?
|
| It certainly should, or the vote tabulating software is horrendously
| buggy and should not be trusted to return valid results.

As i understand it, this is the complete oposite of what you are now
claiming, i may be wrong or have misunderstood something though.

Friendly,

Sven Luther