[lac-discuss-en] The Numbers are Plain Wrong.

[Carlton Samuels]

I heard that some may read and interpret what I write to mean I am blaming
Staff for reporting wrong numbers.  You would be wrong on both.

I am *NOT* and cannot blame the At-Large Staff.

It is the Secretariat that is responsible for verifying the votes. It is
the Chair that is presiding at the General Assembly and is accountable to
LACRALO for the reporting of the results of the GA.

There is no question the vote tally is incorrect. And it is the LACRALO
leadership that must exercise the duty of care and to follow the rules and
report correctly.

That sentence was my warning to readers to expect those responsible to
shift the blame to Staff. And to expose that move to the light before it is
made.

-Carlton Samuels


==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com>
wrote:

> So another sham of a LACRALO election is endured.
>
> If you believe in a democratic institution based on rules and
> constitutional authority, the candidate declared the representative of
> LACRALO to the ALAC for the period 2015-2017 is as illegitimate as the
> election process was tainted and fraudulent.
>
> Here's more evidence of incompetence and sloth. Those vote numbers that
> are reported are plain wrong.  Look for this to be blamed on staff.
>
> One really need not be a genius in discrete mathematics for it to be
> immediately obvious that with only 14 ALS voting in affirmative for the
> 'winner', that could NOT amount to 46% of the vote. It is the weighted
> percentage that counts, not any other fanciful figure pulled from some
> febrile brain.
>
> There are 20 countries represented in LACRALO. Each country is CAPPED at
> 5% of the vote.
>
> That 5% is deemed the Maximum Percentage.
>
> The 5% of vote is shared equally by the ALS in each country.
>
> The contribution of each voter is then proportional to the number of ALS
> in each country.
>
> Take the case of Argentina. There are nine (9) accredited ALS. Each ALS
> can only contribute and vote 0.56% of that Maximum Percentage.
>
> Take the case of Nicaragua. With only one (1) ALS, IEEE Nicaragua exercise
> the maximum 5% on its own for Nicaragua.
>
> LACRALO has forty-seven (47) ALS.  Only 30 ALS participated in the sham of
> an election; BigPulse records 14 votes for Arcos, 8 votes for Rojas and 8
> abstentions.
>
> An abstention is counted as a 'no' vote under the rules.
>
> Seventeen (17) ALS were credentialed and did not vote. These could very
> well be classified 'election not acknowledged for crap'.
>
> See https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=5014vdFeWMZF7tDJbzr4zuiD
>
> The real numbers are as follows :
>
> Did NOT vote  - 37.87%
> Arcos              - 27.67%
> Abstain/No     - 19.04%
> Rojas               - 15.42%
>
> There's your 100% of the possible vote accounted!
>
> LACRALO does not have a rule pertaining thresholds for legitimacy or
> runoffs. But this I know for sure. The 'winner' does not and cannot
> represent the interests of the Jamaican Internet user at the ALAC. Not on a
> fraudulent vote.
>
> The spreadsheet will be sent to staff. So that the connection be made to
> the authoritative precedent, I will also include the spreadsheet used to
> quantify the votes in 2008 that was originally developed by Nick
> Ashton-Hart.
>
> -Carlton Samuels
>
> ==============================
> Carlton A Samuels
> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
> =============================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-en/attachments/20150914/6c25fecf/attachment.html>