Re: Results for Voting secrecy
felix.lechner@lease-up.com writes:
> I believe the vote should be redone.
> A repeat without Option 3 is needed so that your certified results can
> properly reflect the electorate's position with respect to the question
> posed on the ballot while also honoring our constitutional majority
> requirement.
Speaking solely to procedure rather than merits, I don't see any
constitutional path for this to be done. Assuming the votes are correctly
recorded (and I don't see any reason to doubt that they are), I believe
this would go beyond the powers of the Project Secretary. We do not have
a constitutional mechanism to re-run a vote because someone believes the
range of options and their interaction with supermajority requirements was
potentially confusing to voters.
The constitution is quite explicit that supermajority requirements are
only counted against the default option, not against other ballot options.
(See A.5.3.)
You could, of course, propose a remedy or forward-looking fix, such as
prohibiting mixing options with different supermajority requirements on a
single ballot (which would fix this potential problem and several other
problems that have been noted over the years at the cost of requiring
multiple rounds of voting to resolve some GRs). But that would require a
constitutional change and thus another GR with a 3:1 majority.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: