Dear all, as you all know, we have been faced with an unprecedented situation in the recent vote to select voting delegates to the NomCom for 2013. Our Bylaws incorporate rules for the Candidate Elections. These rules are valid for the election of all ALAC officers, including delegates to the NomCom. Rule 10.4 specifies that "Instant-runoff" voting is to be used as the voting system to determine the winner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting Rule 10.5 specifies that voters rank *all* candidates in order of preference. This means that the type of instant-runoff voting required is "full preference" voting. It does not allow for the selection of only one candidate. Unfortunately, the Bigpulse system was programmed to allow for the selection of only one candidate, and some voters did so. As a result, the vote broke rule 10.5 and is therefore null and void. Because we need to select someone as quickly as possible, I have instructed staff to start a new vote which will closely follow our Bylaws. As a result, the vote will ask for *all* candidates to be placed in order, and the BigPulse system will be programmed to refuse partial votes. You will also note that there is no "none of the above" option since this is not mandated in our bylaws. So the only options ALAC members will have to vote will be: Candidate A - 1 Candidate B - 2 or Candidate A - 2 Candidate B - 1 or Abstain - 1 I know that there are other possible choices that could be possible with "partial preference instant-runoff voting" but our Bylaws do NOT allow it. If you have any questions, I would be happy to reply to them. One lesson learnt is that we need to make sure our re-write of the ALAC Rules of Procedures is quite clear about how votes are to be counted and what type of voting system is used. Once again, apologies for the confusion this has caused. Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair