RE: [council] The Way Forward - Choices

["erica" <erica.roberts@melbourneit.com.au>]

Thankyou Dennis
I think this is a very helpful summary.

While I sympathise with those who are finding this election process
something of a marathon, I think it important to recognize that we are not
operating in a context similar to a national election where an election
process has been subject to rigorous examination, trialled and supported by
a raft of independent electoral officers and scrutineeers.

This election process represents the first triall of an electorial system
which is foreign to many of us and must be synchonised across time zones,
communication media and national borders.  For a whole lot of good reasons,
we are also attempting to implement the system with minimal administrative
support - placing a very heavy burden on Elizabeth who is forced to combine
the roles of 'tally room supervisor and operators, Returning officer and
scrutineers.  Its a big ask!

In this context it is hardly surprising that procedural and administrative
difficulties should have emerged. The only question now is how we resolve
these difficulties.

Option 3 below effectively  suggests we ignore the difficulties and proceed
regardless of problems encountered - as if our system was already
established as a credible and reliable system.  I believe this would be a
risky move and very difficult to justify.

If we are to achieve our primary objective of developing and implementing a
credible electoral system, I think we must accept either the first or second
options set out by Dennis and supported by Andrew.  This means that the
marathon continues but, in the longer term, minimises our risk exposure.

erica

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
Dennis Jennings
Sent: Monday, October 18, 1999 5:59 AM
To: Names Council (E-mail)
Cc: Andrew McLaughlin (E-mail); Joe Sims (E-mail)
Subject: [council] The Way Forward - Choices


Colleagues,

In order to try and expedite our discussions tomorrow, let me outline the
choices I believe we have.  There are three

1.  We can declare the third election void and re-run the third election
from the start.  This is what I recommended before.  This is consistent with
Andrew McLaughlin's advice.

2.  We can declare the first count a miscount - and redo the count for the
first round, declare the result and move on to round 2.  This is consistent
with Andrew McLaughlin's advice.

3.  We can let the votes as published stand on the basis that the erroneous
vote was counted and that vote cannot now be changed.  This is NOT
consistent with Andrew McLaughlin's advice.

Thanks
Dennis