I know there is always too much of discussion when elections are open (if only because I was myself the Election Administrator for a number of years); however, I'd like to share some praise, but also ask a simple question. I received my ballot, and voted it. We have an amazing slate of candidates for the board, and I will be enthusiastic if any of those whom I DID NOT vote for happen to win. Folks can vote as they feel is best, but I would personally recommend that you NOT vote specifically for exactly 11 candidates. Rather, what kinda works best with Approval Voting is to look at each individual candidate statement, and set a threshold of enthusiasm for that person, voting for each independently accordingly. If you happen to cast 17 Yeses, there is no harm in that (other voters will vote differently, and there will be some total votes for each person); likewise if you happen to only vote 3 Yeses. However, that's not my comment or question. Rather, I thought about the order of the ballot. And I happen to live with another PSF Voting Member, so asked her about her order (although not about her votes). To my pleasure, she receive a ballot listing candidates in a different order than mine. I think that is GREAT, and commend the Election Administrator on this. Varying order reduces unconscious bias (i.e. voters are likely to vote for the first few they like, then tire of the choices "down ballot" ... it's human). I am curious though, about exactly how this was done. That is, was the software enhanced to randomize order for each individual voter? Or was it more like what I did in some past years, and there are simply 3-4 batches of ballots (but each order sent to 100 voters or whatever), each one with a different ordering? Either way is good, but of course the first is better if the software happens to support it now. Best wishes, David... -- Keeping medicines from the bloodstreams of the sick; food from the bellies of the hungry; books from the hands of the uneducated; technology from the underdeveloped; and putting advocates of freedom in prisons. Intellectual property is to the 21st century what the slave trade was to the 16th.