[Gpca-votes] IMPORTANT: SGA Voting Closed Early At East Coast Time

Mon Jan 29 21:32:25 PST 2018

In Anticipation of the Upcoming SGA Election,

I am rehashing this thread to bring up an important point before we
approach the next vote.

I wanted to raise this concern when this thread was active, however,
numerous problems with the last vote made me not even want to bother:

*Several people were left off the original ballot announcement, having not
recieved special, exclusive instructions to cc applications to an
additional email address, but instead, followed the explicit instructions
included on the inform list announcement for CC elections

*The voting page was sent out from a gmail address rather than an official
gpca-dot-org address

*A GPCA Spokesperson showed public support for one candidate over another,
which is a conflict of interest

*At least one active county was not informed of the SGA

*Finally, this email thread explains the voting deadline had not been set
to Pacific time, and some delegates were left out of the vote

Eric Brooks explains that the numbers did not matter because the results
already showed the winners, regardless. I understand that this would be
correct but the concern I kept to myself at that time was that the actual
statistics would not be recorded accurately.

This might not seem like a big deal but for a party which boasts voting
integrity and all related issues, this lack of concern of such things
should be addressed.

If statistics of the results were used in citation, afterward, that
citation would not be valid. In other words, one could not legitimately
claim one candidate received x-percent of a vote because the voting was
never complete.

Integrity is doing the right thing, even when it seems it doesn't matter-
not just when it's convenient, or benefits your agenda. This and future
internal party elections should reflect this.

-Nicole Castor
GP Sacramento County

PS
I would also like to take this opportunity to reach out to anyone who may
have any questions concerning me, or the work I do on our County Council. I
have been rather surprised and disturbed by some of the things I have been
hearing coming back to me lately. I prefer to address issues, rather than
whisper behind backs because addressing is the only way to actually have
the possibility of an explanation.
On Nov 20, 2017 5:59 PM, "C. A. B." <cabouldin at msn.com> wrote:

> So do we have to go back on the OpaVote to see the results or will they be
> sent out?
>
> On 11/20/2017 11:59 AM, R Schwichtenberg wrote:
>
> Spam detection software, running on the system "gateway.dolorespark.org",
> has identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original
> message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
> similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
> the administrator of that system for details.
>
> Content preview:  Eric, please open the ðŸ—³ vote box for me... Rj
> Schwichtenberg
>    Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 20, 2017, at 7:39 AM, Bob Marsh wrote: > >
> Eric,
>    > Is there a way to see the results like there was with the old system?
> >
>    > Bob > > >> On Nov 19, 2017, at 21:25, Eric Brooks wrote: >> >> Hi
> again
>    all, >> >> The Vote Admins have just discovered that the SGA voting
> software
>    closed the vote at midnight *East* coast time rather than west coast
> time.
>    >> >> *HOWEVER* if you did not get a chance to vote and were planning to
>   just before midnight please note that both winning candidates had already
>   received enough first round votes by the time the vote was closed, that
> even
>    if any one other candidate had received all remaining votes, the
> candidates
>    who won tonight would still have won - so the early closing of voting
> will
>    not affect the actual results. >> >> *IMPORTANT* If you still wish to
> have
>    your votes counted in the anonymous totals so that they change the
> totals
>    (even though this will not change the results) reply to this email by
> midnight
>    tonight and we will arrange for your votes to be included in the totals.
>   >> >> Sorry for any difficulties you had personally with the OpaVote
> system.
>    This is our first time using this new voting software and there were
> bound
>    to be some bugs. >> >> Eric Brooks >> >> From: Eric Brooks >> Sent:
> Sunday,
>    November 19, 2017 8:46 PM >> To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes >>
> Subject:
>    Please Contact Eric Brooks If You Have Any Problems With Your SGA Vote
> Tonight
>    >> >> Hi all, >> >> I am available all night tonight for anyone who has
> problems
>    voting on the OpaVote site in the SGA election. >> >> Iâ€™ll be sending
> out
>    a vote reminder at 9pm which all of you who have not yet voted should
> receive
>    (CHECK YOUR SPAM FOLDERS IF YOU DONâ€™T SEE IT). >> >> *TO CONTACT ME*
> >>
>    >> Email me at: brookse32 at hotmail.com >> >> and /or call me at: >> >>
> 415-756-8844 <(415)%20756-8844>
>    >> >> Eric Brooks >> -- >> gpca-votes mailing list >>
> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
>    >> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgreens.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%
> 2Flistinfo%2Fgpca-votes&data=02%7C01%7Ccabouldin%40msn.com%
> 7C19e392de4b22487c76a708d530554115%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaa
> aaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636468065089279719&sdata=Edcv15zUxSuzYhUzs5H1axmN8QbvEQ
> BdUtftG49lcbk%3D&reserved=0 > > NOTICE:
>    Due to [...]
>
> Content analysis details:   (6.9 points, 5.0 required)
>
>  pts rule name              description
> ---- ---------------------- ------------------------------
> --------------------
>  0.1 DOS_RCVD_IP_TWICE_C    Received from the same IP twice in a row (only
>                             one external relay; empty or IP helo)
>  0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in
>                             digit (efgreen.1[at]juno.com)
>  0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM          Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail
> provider
>                             (efgreen.1[at]juno.com)
>  0.8 SPF_NEUTRAL            SPF: sender does not match SPF record (neutral)
>  0.0 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL      RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP
> address
>                             [70.211.15.239 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net]
>  2.0 RCVD_IN_PBL            RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL
>                             [70.211.15.239 listed in zen.spamhaus.org]
>  0.2 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
>  0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not
> necessarily valid
>  1.0 RDNS_DYNAMIC           Delivered to internal network by host with
>                             dynamic-looking rDNS
>  1.2 T_DKIM_INVALID         DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid
>  0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY      Informational: message has unparseable relay
> lines
>  1.0 FREEMAIL_REPLY         From and body contain different freemails
>  0.2 HELO_MISC_IP           Looking for more Dynamic IP Relays
>
> The original message was not completely plain text, and may be unsafe to
> open with some email clients; in particular, it may contain a virus,
> or confirm that your address can receive spam.  If you wish to view
> it, it may be safer to save it to a file and open it with an editor.
>
> --
> gpca-votes mailing list
> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgreens.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%
> 2Flistinfo%2Fgpca-votes&data=02%7C01%7Ccabouldin%40msn.com%
> 7C19e392de4b22487c76a708d530554115%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaa
> aaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636468065089279719&sdata=Edcv15zUxSuzYhUzs5H1axmN8QbvEQ
> BdUtftG49lcbk%3D&reserved=0
>
>
>
> --
> gpca-votes mailing list
> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.sfgreens.org/pipermail/gpca-votes/attachments/20180129/65a25fe1/attachment.html>