[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [atlarge-discuss] FICTIONAL ELECTION RESULTS



Yes, I was simply asking Jefsey to *check*
It could be deletion of invalid ballots, it could be a typo, it could be
anything.
I guess the really important thing is to make sure the process is
independently checked and validated. As you said to Bruce earlier today,
part of what we have been trying to achieve over an extended period of time
is to build up a reputation for transparency and trusted democratic
practice.
In the light of the present election, I think it is important for the
reputation of the at large that an Electoral Commission is set up to
evaluate the processes and events of this election and report back, either
endorsing the process, accepting it though flawed, or rejecting it. At the
same time there should be a clear record of lessons learned, and procedures
should be recommended for future At Large elections.
In that way, our organisation can distance itself from the actual electoral
procedures of this vote, and reaffirm the long-term commitment to the best
possible practice when it comes to elections.

I think even Jefsey would admit that the discrepancy which Sotiris pointed
out (over more voters but fewer votes) deserves some rationalisation because
without an explanation it leaves the impression that 'something strange was
going on'.

Richard H

----- Original Message -----
From: Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>
To: Richard Henderson <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>; Sotiris Sotiropoulos
<sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>; At Large Discuss
<atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Cc: <jefsey@club-internet.fr>
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 2:05 PM
Subject: RE: [atlarge-discuss] FICTIONAL ELECTION RESULTS


> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Richard Henderson [mailto:richardhenderson@ntlworld.com]
>
> > Um... yes this is a problem... Jefsey please could you check
> > these figures,
> > since the number of votes clearly can't go down for a candidate after 8
> > extra people have voted...
> >
> > Richard H
>
> Actually it can. Possible scenario:- The first count included duplicate
> ballots that got through the filters because they arrived from different
> email addresses and it wasn't immediately obvious they were from the same
> person. These were then spotted on a manual check. At the same time,
others
> were invalidated in error because the recipient sent a BCC to themselves.
So
> possibly what you are looking at here is a revised count based on an
> exchange of ballots, rather than just an addition of ballots. If so, one
can
> safely assume the duplicates that were eliminated had a greater number of
> votes on them than the combined total of the ballots that replaced them.
>
> One problem with releasing results before they have been checked and
> validated, which can take a while even with the services of an experienced
> and paid secretariat, like the old DNSO, is that it confuses people, and
> wastes a lot of time while people cast doubt on the result. It was always
a
> DNSO rule never to publish provisional counts before finalized by the
> Watchdogs and they were always 100% correct because the Secretariat
released
> the voter list, against which every single ballot could be tallied,
whether
> counted or spoilt. I don't think Jefsey needs to explain anything at this
> point, since I view it as a provisional count. Rather he just needs
another
> pair of sharp eyes or two to go over what he is doing and double check for
> errors.
>
> Regards,
> Joanna
>
>
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>
> >
> > > 116 Members have voted.
> > > The candidate with the largest number of votes has 53 votes.
> > > The 11th candidate has 33 votes
> > > The 27th candidate has 4 votes.
> > >
> > then...
> > >
> > > 124 Members have voted
> > > - the leading candidate has 48 votes, i.e. 38 %
> > > - the 11th candidate has 29 votes, i.e. 23 %
> > > - the last candidate has 6 votes, i.e. 4 %
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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