[Gpca-votes] IMPORTANT: SGA Voting Closed Early At East Coast Time
Nicole Castor
nmcastorsilva at gmail.com
Tue Jan 30 19:36:47 PST 2018
Nassim,
Irrelevant. You already had the permissions when you responded to the test
request. Your resonse was to offer your phone number to the requesting
party, for a "chat." To my knowledge, nobody gave you such authority to
make a decision like that, certainly nobody from my county. Volunteers from
specific regions should be directed to their appropriate party, as they had
been previously. This goes against decentralization and we have no way of
knowing what things are discussed (phone calls have no paper trails,
right?) or if the wells are being poisoned. I'm not saying that's the case-
I'm saying we have no way of knowing.
I can understand if there's a backlog and I know there was at least one
other months-old request that didn't reach us. I had been receiving
requests up to a certain point where there were changes of personal
feelings toward me- at which point, the requests stopped.
Regardless, on a group email in which this was addressed, Tim Laidman
confirmed you had access to the nationbuilder requests and this is
evidenced by the fact you responded to the test-request.
-N
On Jan 30, 2018 7:09 PM, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Jane, all,
>
> Please understand that the statements that Nicole is making below, are
> simply not correct.
>
> The new Vote Admins contacted all of the delegates personally to make sure
> they had full voting information and access, including delegates from Napa.
>
> No one was left out.
>
> The only big glitch we had was the vote closing 3 hours earlier than we
> expected.
>
> Eric Brooks
>
>
>
> *From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces at sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Jane Jarlsberg
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 30, 2018 1:47 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
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> --
> 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/20180130/07ace690/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gpca-votes
mailing list