[Gpca-votes] IMPORTANT: SGA Voting Closed Early At East Coast Time
Jane Jarlsberg
jjarlsberg at gmail.com
Tue Jan 30 13:46:35 PST 2018
Thank you Nicole for clarifying these points for us 'newbies'! peace, Jane
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On Jan 30, 2018 10:28 AM, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > This is incorrect.
> >
> > 1) All active counties were contacted, and all delegates were contacted.
>
> *Apparently Napa County was not, and possibly others.
> >
> > 2) All delegates, counties and applicants received the same instructions.
>
> *Absolutely incorrect. It was stated on one of these threads that the
> reason my and others' cc applications were not received was because we did
> not copy the email to someone other than applications at cagreens... I have
> the original announcement with the instructions to send to "applications"
> only.
> >
> > 3) Spokespersons are not barred from personally supporting specific
> candidates.
>
> *Spokespersons are not technically barred from doing anything besides what
> the actual law mandates. There are no specific bylaws which govern them. I
> did not make such a claim. I stated that it is a conflict of interest,
> which it is.
> >
> > 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 makes no difference whether or not anyone had an issue with this. What
> I said is that the results are not valid; the statistics are inaccurate.
> Besides this, people should not have to be asked if something is "okay."
> Are you certain everyone saw your message? Are you certain everyone felt
> comfortable speaking up? They shouldn't have to because the vote should
> have been done correctly.
> >
> > 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.
>
> *Please provide verification- until then, it is only hearsay. It is my
> understanding that attempts were made to communicate but that the new SGA
> Admins were determined to use different systems.
>
> *-Nicole
>
> >
> > 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> 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 🗳 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. >> >> I’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 DON’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
> >
> >
> > --
> > gpca-votes mailing list
> > gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
> > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
> >
>
>
> --
> 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/20180130/b46b7787/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gpca-votes
mailing list