11 Dec 18 10:15, you wrote to Carol Shenkenberger:
WD> You and I know Sean Dennis sent-in a vote, you and I know it wasn't WD> counted, you and know it isn't even mentioned.
WD> My guess is it was a timing problem, too late, but it should have been
I have no direct knowledge (not having discussed it with either Fred or Sean), but I suspect you are correct.
WD> reported. Since it wasn't, it cast a shadow over this election. the WD> question then follows "How many other votes were not counted and for WD> which reason?"
WD> This election is tainted and there should be a re-run.
CS>> So my proposal is if any FTSC member feels we need a runoff, we CS>> keep it short and sweet. It can be unfair to MVDL to drag it too CS>> long.
WD> A run-off isn't needed but a re-vote from scratch with the same WD> candidates, c'mon Carol ...
WD> - The voting has been compromised, whether or not it changes the WD> outcome is IMO irrelvant - A vote went lost/unreported. What happened WD> to that vote and why? - The provisional winner has lobbied to have a WD> particular vote-enumerator - The vote-enumerator defends the outcome WD> of the vote of which the winner is the one who pushed to have that WD> particular enumerator - The vote-enumerator ruling on hmself?
I proposed that Fred act as the enumerator, based on his knowledge of the FTSC (as a former member.) At the time it was discussed in FTSC, there was not a single voice of dissent to that proposal.
Anyone who thinks there is anything more to the selection than that, obviously does not know either Fred or I very well.
