> > > Also, as long as I'm looking at it, "less than or equal to" in > > > R955(d)(3) should probably just be "less than", since the vote > > > collector implicitly counts as 1 support. > > > > This should be handled by amending R1729(d) so that the vote > > collector is not auto-disqualified in this case. (Consider the > > IADoP's duty to attempt to change officers; e should be free to > > object to eir own attempt. Unless e is ineligible for other > > reasons, e.g. the current IADoP is a partnership.) > > Good point. I'm not convinced by your IADoP argument (e should > attempt to make placements that e's willing to support), but it's a > simpler approach overall.
Actually, I've changed my mind. However it would be worded, the vote collector's vote would need to be counted toward the majority index, but not toward the support index. I don't like the inconsistency of that; it seems confusing. -root
