Dick Kalkman d.h.kalkman at isoc.nl
Fri Jun 28 09:22:02 UTC 2013

Dear Olivier,

Thank you for your comments. I'll also provide my comments inline:

On 28-6-2013 10:48, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
> 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.

This is wrong. Yes, it's OK to limit the second round to the two
candidates with the most votes. No, it's NOT OK to change the voting
system. In a second round it's common practice that the candidate with
the most votes wins. In a second round there is no absolute majority
vote needed.
We are tying to solve a problem that doesn't exists. And worse by
violating voting principles.

>> 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:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-round_system

Clear, but it doesn't say that removing the so called "none of the above
option" or "blank vote" option is allowed. More deeply this would also
partially violate the most basic rule that voting on natural persons is
a secret. You are not allowed to control or see what or how somebody
vote. Not by looking over her or his shoulder, not by letting a
electronic system control this.

>> 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.

No, in a second round the candidate with the most votes always wins.
Yes, there is a possibility that both candidates get the same number of
votes, but that is another problem.

> 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".

No, this is violating the right to vote for none (blank vote) of the

> 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 doubt if the board is authorized to do so, but anyway it's not in the
minutes what saves us from adding this potential additional problem.

> I hope this helps.
> Kind regards,
> Olivier

I think it's better for EURALO to solve this problem internally!

Best and most simple solution is:
1. Add the "none of the above" option;
2. Redo the vote.

Best Regards,

Dick Kalkman

More information about the EURO-Discuss mailing list