Re: [ga] electoral fraud by the ga chair

["!Dr. Joe Baptista" <baptista@pccf.net>]

You have not answered the question.  You are being asked why it is after
Joop advised you and made you very aware that fraud was possible why after
knowing that did you choose to go ahead with it.  I will now address some
of the points you have made here.

On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> This has been discussed before. To reiterate:
> 
> - The choice of a poll rather than a vote was made because the GA does not
>    have a defined membership.

The membership has been defined as those who are listed on the GA.  This
is an excuse to rationalize fraud.

> - The choice of an open poll rather than a closed poll was made for 2 reasons:
>    - So as not to disenfranchise anyone who was not on a specific list, but
>      still wanted to give his opinion

In other words you were willing from the beginning to pollute the results
of the GA with influence from other non GA sources - I call that electoral
fraud.

>    - To get an idea of whether anyone would use false identities to
>      influence the result of the poll.

Voting is not an experimental process nor is it a part of the scientific
method.  A vote or a poll is not a test.  This is electoral fraud.

> 
> The poll result gave 4 answers:
> 
> - The number of people who cared to respond is low

As I've said before - that reflects on you and yours.  A low voter turn
out is a vote in itself.  A vote of confidence in you and yours.

> - Among those who responded, opinion is pretty evenly divided

No - it is not.  The poll was a fraud and the rsults by default
fradulent.  You are reaching in your attempts to interpret this and
justify your actions.

> - Joe Baptista used the fact that the poll was open to vote multiple
>    times, but claims that his votes did not influence the result.

Yes, I did do this to prove this vote is fraudulent - and I delivered.  A
voting process should not be subjected to abuse - and the chair and
alternate chair knowing such abuse was possible from the beginning are
themselves the only culprits in this matter.

> - No other behaviour that gave reason for suspicion of fraud was detected.

This is an even more bogus claim.  You could not tell me which votes I
cast that were bogus - and the same applies to every other vote taken in
this poll.

Fraud is fraud and it is the alternate chair and chair who have
participated from the beginning in fraud.

Regards
Joe