No subject

same name, no distribution of preferences can provide the required 
support needed to change the name.  The flowchart referred to is 
deficient in this regard, as is the PHP code to which Anthony Towns 
directed me, at 
http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~memberdb-owners/memberdb/trunk/view/head:/authenticated/election-result.inc.

Another deficiency in the flowchart, also relating to keeping the 
current name, is that preferences following "no change of name" must not 
be distributed, nor may it be eliminated.  Allow me to explain in 
greater detail: For sake of example, suppose only three choices are 
available, "name 1", "name 2" and "no change"; and that first 
preferences fall in ratio 40 : 34 : 26.  According to the flowchart, "no 
change" should be eliminated as the minority candidate; however no new 
name can garner 75% support if 26% of voters support no change and 
eliminating that candidate with 26% of votes would pervert that truth.  
Eliminating "no change" as "last place candidate" would be improper.  
Since "no change" must not be eliminated, it follows that preferences 
cannot flow from that candidate.

Of course, it must be admitted that this election cannot directly result 
in change of name.  That may only be done by special resolution, which 
requires the text of the proposed resolution to be circulated 21-days 
prior to the meeting.  What we currently are voting for is to choose the 
name that will form the basis of that special resolution.  The Council 
probably can, should they so choose, eliminate "no change" if it is the 
minority candidate, but I argue this would be deceit, as well as 
pointless.  The point is, members who want to keep the name unchanged 
don't need to vote in this election; they need only vote against the 
special resolution that necessarily must be proposed.  I urge members 
who want to keep the current name to vote in this election as a courtesy 
to the Council; just as I urge the Council never to treat "no change" as 
a minority candidate.

Finally, so as not to disadvantage members who are unable to attend the 
AGM, I ask that a postal ballot be conducted, for which a (non-committee 
member) returning officer must be appointed.

It is a matter of great disappointment to me that the previous council 
mindfully and explicitly chose to discard the old constitution without 
including electronic voting at elections in the new one; that provision 
had been approved by members (even if the Director General had not yet 
been notified.)  It cannot be said that this was an oversight as the 
point was raised during extended debate.  I regret that a postal ballot 
will be a significant expense, however the only alternative (under the 
new constitution) would disenfranchise a great portion of our members.