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

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

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