RE: [atlarge-discuss] MEMEBRS AS WATCHDOGS - RECOUNT

["Abel Wisman" <abel@able-towers.com>]

Joanna, 

Whether you keep your temper or not does not change that much to the
outcome.
Also please do me a favour and just post to the list, I receive that and
getting everything twice is not really helping me.

I have some problems with your maths here though, the 18 listed account
for a total (pre-check) of 1040 votes and 1008 after recount which in my
class comes to a difference of 32 votes which equals 3.0769231 % and not
90 or more procent.

Please if you are as concerned as you make it out to be, do another
count yourself, the more the merrier and the more likely the outcome
will be correct soon and we can move on and write by-laws which will
carefully describe the voting mechanism and security checks.

If a count program misreads a character or a mashed field in an email
that does not mean the software is faulty, it just means that the
preliminary results are not completely confirming the final results
which will no doubt be posted by the watchdogs seeing as they already
announced the fact that the vote-count was not final.

Regards

Abel




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joanna Lane [mailto:jo-uk@rcn.com] 
> Sent: 02 June 2003 02:22
> To: abel@able-towers.com; 'Atlarge Discuss List'
> Subject: 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



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de