10 Dec 18 14:55, Ward Dossche wrote to Fred Riccio:


 FR>>WD> the secrecy of the voting has now been compromised and the
 FR>>WD> logical result would be that it is totally invalid.

 FR>> There was no promise (or mandate) of secrecy, confidentiality, or
 FR>> anonymity in the election rules.

 WD> If the vote was not meant to be secret, there was no need for an 
 WD> elaborate password system 

I don't consider it elaborate.



 WD> and I personally think the electorate has a 
 WD> right to know who the voters are without disclosing the actual vote.

See my previous response to you.  If the voters want to make it known, they
will.



 FR>> That is correct.  Under the rules of this election you have no right 
 FR>> to contest the results.  I will not be excusing myself.

 WD> The absence of the right to contest the result does not disqualify me 
 WD> from having an opinion.

Your opinion has been noted.


 WD> There also seems to be a vote by Sean Dennis which went the way of 
 WD> the Dodo-bird and vanished. it is not mentioned in any of the 
 WD> reporting ... this is the 2nd questionable vote.

There must be some back channel I am not aware of....  Sean knows what happened
and he knows why.  I notified him via NetMail.  If he wants to discuss it here
let him bring it up himself.

Are you trying to bait me into another breach of confidentiality?


 WD> I still think the proper thing is to step back and to announce a 
 WD> rerun with a new, yet to be decided-upon, enumerator.

I hear your opinion, but nothing you have said tells me that the results would
be any different.

--- Msged/NT 6.0.1