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

Tue Jan 30 10:26:44 PST 2018

This is incorrect.

1) All active counties were contacted, and all delegates were contacted.

2) All delegates, counties and applicants received the same instructions.

3) Spokespersons are not barred from personally supporting specific candidates.

4) With regard to the problem of the vote closing 3 hours early, my email clearly noted that problem and specifically called on anyone who had not voted by the deadline and who wanted their votes to be counted, to email a reply saying so. No one responded to request this so we didn’t do an adjusted count. And as I noted before and Nicole just reiterated, and adjusted count would not have changed the results.

It is also important remind everyone that the reason we were forced to switch to a new voting system (with inevitable first time glitches) is that the previous Vote Administrators refused to provide the *new* Vote Administrators access to the controls of the existing voting system and SGA email list.

Eric Brooks

From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces at sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Castor
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 9:32 PM
To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>
Subject: Re: [Gpca-votes] IMPORTANT: SGA Voting Closed Early At East Coast Time

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<mailto: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<http://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<mailto:brookse32 at hotmail.com> >> >> and /or call me at: >> >> 415-756-8844<tel:(415)%20756-8844>
   >> >> Eric Brooks >> -- >> gpca-votes mailing list >> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org<mailto: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%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636468065089279719&sdata=Edcv15zUxSuzYhUzs5H1axmN8QbvEQBdUtftG49lcbk%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<http://juno.com>)
 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM          Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
                            (efgreen.1[at]juno.com<http://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<http://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<http://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<mailto: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%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636468065089279719&sdata=Edcv15zUxSuzYhUzs5H1axmN8QbvEQBdUtftG49lcbk%3D&reserved=0

--
gpca-votes mailing list
gpca-votes at sfgreens.org<mailto: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/20180130/ff969512/attachment-0001.html>