Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond ocl at gih.com
Fri Jun 28 08:48:33 UTC 2013

Dear Dick,

thank you for your message. I'll provide my answers in-line:

On 28/06/2013 09:46, Dick Kalkman wrote:
> Dear Wolf,
> I can not find this strange decision the (interesting) minutes of the
> board meeting. The discussion ended with "Wolf Ludwig: Simple repetition
> of the previous vote, same candidates, no new nominations, same voters."
> Nothing about new procedures a.s.o.

I can confirm that when the Board discussed the next steps forward,
there was consensus that only two candidates should be on the ballot and
that the "none of the above" selection would be removed.
Otherwise, the new vote would yield the same problem as the first round
of voting.

> Yes, you can indeed reduce options to come up with a clear result on the
> candidates, but that means that you limit the number of candidates. You
> don't violate international recognized and accepted voting principles!
> It's an upside world if you adopt voting rights and a voting system to
> optically compensate for failing bylaws (or failing bylaw interpretations).
> On this base the voting system and the voting results can not be
> supported and accepted.

The run-off vote is an “international recognized and accepted voting principle” – see:

> For the best of EURALO I prefer a quick, clear and acceptable
> operational solution by correcting and restarting the bigpulse voting by
> adding the none option.
> Just apply the common rule that in the second round the candidate with
> the most votes wins.

Without the elimination of one of the options, it is likely that the
results will lead again in a deadlock.
For those people who do not wish to vote for either candidate, they can
decide not to vote. As a result, the results will be decided from the
votes cast and there is no problem of "none of the above".
It is also worth noting that in the past, the option "none of the above"
was never offered. We are therefore entering new territory regarding
this -- and the inclusion of "none of the above" is mandated by no
bylaw. Quite the contrary, it was a decision of the Board to add it to
the ballot. It can therefore be removed by decision of the Board.

I hope this helps.

Kind regards,


More information about the EURO-Discuss mailing list