|
Post by Admin on May 27, 2016 9:13:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 3, 2016 23:28:37 GMT -5
Sigh...despite so-called professional assistance, there is at least one error in the Consents. I have verified this from the raw data. This was brought to my attention by the owner of 35 Royal Coachman, who called me after I published the Consent Counts.
He said "My Consent Form is still in my possession! I never voted Yes or NO, I did not return the Form!"
Despite that, he learned that S-bag had voted YES for him as indicated on the Street Tally Consent Sheet!
S-bag made two errors. It did not properly record the Owner's vote at 35 Queen of Waters. The Consent Count Tally Sheet shows that this owner did not return a Consent/Ballot.
The second error was recording the vote at 35 Royal Coachmen as a YES vote. This parcel, in fact, did not return a Ballot.
The vigilant and paid counsel who supposedly DOUBLE checked the Votes counted 35 Queen of Waters as an Absent vote and 35 Royal Coachmen YES vote!
Very sloppy especially with multiple confirmation counts.
Gosh..if I found the error after a careful review of the Consent Forms, I would think that the professionals who are PAID to ensure accuracy would have found the error!
In the final analysis, the YES vote was only counted as ONE vote and the final outcome was sufficiently high to not cause a cH allenge to the revitalization vote in the affected units.
"How many of these kinds of sloppy errors--and other errors--are in the voting validation? Is this the only one?
so
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Jun 4, 2016 14:32:29 GMT -5
"How many of these kinds of sloppy errors--and other errors--are in the voting validation? Is this the only one? A Question for our President (Lareeey Lesster) to answer.... 16RC
|
|