[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [atlarge-discuss] MEMEBRS AS WATCHDOGS - RECOUNT
> From: Abel Wisman [mailto:abel@able-towers.com]
> Jefsey explained the possiblemiscounts already in his email earlier, I
> suggest you read that and I hope to receive some email from watchdogs
> and or members to either confirm or dispute my count.
>
> I do not see this as a grave miscarriage of justice but honest and
> simple mistakes made when relying on software, sometimes one has to
> check, I was able to do so because the files are available.
Listen Abel,
I'm trying really hard to keep my temper here. Stop making excuses for
incompetence. These mistakes are serious because they change the result.
They are not born of honesty, they are the result of allowing Jefsey to use
this organization as a guinea pig to test out his new and proprietary
election software. When the Polling Committee were questioned about his
agenda, they took a very patronising attitude and told us not to worry our
pretty little heads about it. Doesn't seem the answer to all our prayers
now, does it? I mean, to come up with a 90% error rate, you really have to
be flying by the seat of your pants, and not checking even a small sample
manually, or with anyone else. Don't you find it odd that all 3 members of
the Polling Committee made exactly the same errors? Or could it be that Eric
and Bruce still have the ballots unread in their inbox? And by the way,
while you're at it, the count on the ballot questions needs to redone as
well.
Joanna
> For thos who want to check the files themselves they are in raw and zip
> format available at ftp.icannatlarge.org user atlarge, passwd atlarge
>
> Kind regards
>
> Abel
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joanna Lane [mailto:jo-uk@rcn.com]
> > Sent: 02 June 2003 01:33
> > To: abel@able-towers.com; 'Atlarge Discuss List'
> > Subject: RE: [atlarge-discuss] MEMEBRS AS WATCHDOGS - RECOUNT
> >
> >
> > Abel,
> > I sure hope you're wrong because that's a staggering 99%
> > error rate by the Polling Committee, who will have
> > misreported 17 out of a possible 18 results. No doubt you
> > will now appreciate why some of us were questioning their
> > methodology. Joanna
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Abel Wisman [mailto:abel@able-towers.com]
> > > Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 7:26 PM
> > > To: 'Atlarge Discuss List'
> > > Subject: RE: [atlarge-discuss] MEMEBRS AS WATCHDOGS - RECOUNT
> > >
> > >
> > > After reading this I did my own "count" by simply going through the
> > > file manually (ok I used "find") to do a visual count of the votes
> > > this lead to conclude that there are some discrepencies. These
> > > discrepencies are easily explained reading the the code in
> > "watch.c"
> > > and as Jefsey explained in his email.
> > >
> > > On this "visual" count, which is not as easy as counting to
> > 10 I come
> > > to the following count (in brackets the original count):
> > >
> > > 1. Joop Teenstra 97 (100)
> > > 2. David Goldstein 70 ( 71)
> > > 3. Sebastian Klein 68 ( 68)
> > > 4. Daniel Chirita 65 ( 67)
> > > 5. Daniel Tobias 60 ( 63)
> > > 5. Abel Wisman 60 ( 61)
> > > 7. Ivonne Muņoz Torres 59 ( 59)
> > > 7. Andre Rebentisch 59 ( 61)
> > > 9. Hugh Blair 58 ( 59)
> > > 10 Gilbert Lumantao 57 ( 59)
> > > 11 Mauro Demian Rios 47 ( 48)
> > > 11 Sotiris Sotiropoulos 47 ( 51)
> > >
> > >
> > > 13 Jonathan Robin 45 ( 47)
> > > 14 Dominic Pinto 44 ( 46)
> > > 14 Catherine Hughes 44 ( 46)
> > > 14 James Graham 44 ( 46)
> > > 17 Thierry Amoussougbo 43 ( 44)
> > > 18 Curtis M Kularski 41 ( 44)
> > >
> > > Please do your own visual or coded count, I can easily have made
> > > errors, though I believe I was somehow thorough.
> > >
> > > Kind regards
> > >
> > >
> > > Abel
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Jefsey Morfin [mailto:jefsey@online.fr]
> > > > Sent: 01 June 2003 19:59
> > > > To: Atlarge Discuss List
> > > > Subject: [atlarge-discuss] MEMEBRS AS WATCHDOGS - RECOUNT
> > > > - there is a recount needed for Mauro and Sotiris. My
> > > > visual recount confirms that Sotiris is elected. But
> > > > a watchdog's perl program says no.
> > > >
> > > > Walter claimed there was no transparency in Watchdogs. blahblah.
> > > > There is transparency as you never known it before. And I
> > think we
> > > > still can improve this - even on a large scale. But this
> > means that
> > > > all of you are or can be involved and are co-responsible
> > watchdogs;
> > > > This is what you wanted, folks. Now you have it let see
> > what you do
> > > > with it. No possible supposed tricks.
> > > >
> > > > If it works we can have it now made professionnal. Both
> > > > in using "mail and vote" and "click and vote".
> > > > jfc
> > > >
> > > > PS. I started as committed http://apolite.net
> > > > Help wanted for the Franglish.
> > > > mailing list for those wanting to act
> > > > "let-have@apolite.net"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de