CSS specificity of :not() pseudo class

I have this small HTML:

<div id="column">
    <div class="ticker">
        <ul>
            <li>Item 1</li>
        </ul>
    </div>
</div>

For ul elements outside of the .ticker class, but inside of the #column id exists this CSS:

#column ul:not(.a):not(.b) {
    margin: 1em;
}

But inside the .ticker class I don't want this margin. So I thought I could use:

#column .ticker ul {
    margin: 0;
}

That said, I know that the specificity of the first CSS selector is higher because of the two :not() pseudo classes. But to get a higher specificity I had to append those two :not() in the second CSS snippet to the ul, too. So that works:

#column .ticker ul:not(.c):not(.d) {
    margin: 0;
}

Isn't that stupid? In fact it doesn't matter what you use in the two :not()pseudo classes. They just have to be there. This doesn't make any sense to me.

Is that simply a part of CSS3 which is not perfect or is there a solution which my brain didn't come up with yet?

See it in action here: http://jsfiddle.net/9BDw5/2/

It's not just you; this is indeed one of the fundamental pitfalls of specificity as a CSS concept.

A simpler solution that is equally valid would be to repeat your .ticker class selector so you have this:

#column .ticker.ticker ul {
    margin: 0;
}

This way you do not have to modify your element to add an extra class just for the sake of increasing selector specificity.

The spec verifies this:

Note: Repeated occurrances of the same simple selector are allowed and do increase specificity.

On a side note, remember that the specificity of the :not() pseudo-class is strictly defined (in the same section of the spec) as equal to that of its argument. So :not(#id) and #id have the same specificity, and likewise for :not(E):not(.a) and E.a. The :not portion does not count at all, not even as a pseudo-class.

This limitation in specificity will be addressed in Selectors 4, which enhances :not() to accept a comma-delimited list of selectors. The specificity of a :not() that contains a selector list will be that of the most specific selectors in the list, so the specificity of ul:not(.c, .d) is equal to 1 type selector and 1 class selector, compared to ul:not(.c):not(.d) which is equal to 1 type selector and 2 class selectors. This makes it tremendously useful in excluding any number of classes from a match.