The election had the following minor irregularities.
1. One voter did not register during the registration period, but thought he
had registered correctly. This turned out to be confusion between the
election in December to approve the procedures, and the new election in
January. I decided to exclude the voter. The voter in question recognized
that a mistake had been made and didn't appeal the exclusion.
2. The election was not ended on time. Due to forgetfulness on my part, I
didn't close the election at 0:00 UTC and left it open for voting until 12:51
UTC.
I believe the irregularities noted above would not have changed the outcome,
so I am classifying these as "minor irregularities with no impact to results".
The difference between 5th and 6th place was about 7 votes, so I believe any
discrepancy of 3 or fewer votes would not have changed the final result.
There was a close race between 4 and 5 (10-11). That means that one
additional vote might have tied those positions and two votes might have
reversed them. However, 4 and 5 (Mark K and Mark S) both made the council
anyway, so a close race between 4 and 5 wouldn't change the overall outcome.
Congratulations, and good luck, to the 2006 council.
gregc
--
Greg Connor
gconnor(_at_)nekodojo(_dot_)org
Everyone says that having power is a great responsibility. This is a lot
of bunk. Responsibility is when someone can blame you if something goes
wrong. When you have power you are surrounded by people whose job it is
to take the blame for your mistakes. If they're smart, that is.
-- Cerebus, "On Governing"
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com