[Gpca-votes] IMPORTANT: SGA Voting Closed Early At East Coast Time
Nicole Castor
nmcastorsilva at gmail.com
Tue Jan 30 19:40:38 PST 2018
In response to Eric's "Jane, all"
Decide for yourself.
-N
On Jan 30, 2018 7:36 PM, "Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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%7C19e392
>> de4b22487c76a708d530554115%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaa
>> a%7C1%7C0%7C636468065089279719&sdata=Edcv15zUxSuzYhUzs5H1axm
>> N8QbvEQBdUtftG49lcbk%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%7C19e392
>> de4b22487c76a708d530554115%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaa
>> a%7C1%7C0%7C636468065089279719&sdata=Edcv15zUxSuzYhUzs5H1axm
>> N8QbvEQBdUtftG49lcbk%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/bd90a0d8/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gpca-votes
mailing list