Conference 7.286::dcu

401.0. "1988 election audit report" by ESBLAB::KINZELMAN (Paul Kinzelman) Sun Nov 24 1991 12:33

   I have  finally  received what appears to be the full election audit and
   tabulation  results  from DCU (for free no less!).  It is a single sheet
   of  what  appears to be a photocopy of a computer lineprinter page (with
   the horizontal shaded bars). 

   I will attempt to type it in as it appears on the page:

****************************************************************

ELECTION
 29-Mar-88
 04:34 PM
			DIGITAL CREDIT UNION
			Election of Officers
		Election Tabulation Report as of March 30, 1988

Total Ballots Distributed					68,260
Total Ballots Processed						 9,049
Total Valid Ballots counted					 7,076
Total Invalid Ballots Received					 1,973
Response Rate as of March 30, 1988				  10.4%


VALID VOTES - OFFICERS					 Percent of
---------------------------------			Valid Ballots
							-------------
    01	Mark Steinkrauss			4,605	    65.1%
    02	Jay R. Whittaker			  923	    13.0%
    03	Richard Luciano				1,824	    25.8%
    04	Eliana Markoff				2,144	    30.3%
    05	Charlene O'Brien			3,475	    49.1%
    06	Gerry Shusterman			  806	    11.4%


INVALID BALLOTS
---------------
	(1) More Votes Than Allowed per Ballot		   60
	(2) Not An Original Ballot/Envelopoe		    0
	(3) No Validation Certificate of Signature	1,538
	(4) Non-Deliverable Ballot			   22
	(5) Ballot Received After Cut Off Date		  352
	(6) Other					    1


    Tabulation Report Prepared By:
	MOORE BUSINESS FORMS AND SYSTEMS DIV
	RESPONSE ANALYSIS SERVICES
	NORTHBROOK, ILLINOIS

****************************************************************
Back to my comments:

   Remember this  election  was  the one where the ballot said "vote for no
   more  than three" but there were only two openings.  These results don't
   talk  about  that  issue  at  all.   I'd  imagine  that the vote counter
   probably  just  added  up  the total votes and tabulated the results and
   took  the  ballot's invalid instructions as being valid.  There's no way
   to  tell from this printout, nor is it probably important at this point.

   Another interesting  thing  to note is the sum of all the votes was only
   13,777.   If  each  valid  ballot  had  three  votes marked (the maximum
   allowed  by  the  ballot instructions), I would have expected to see the
   total  be (3*7076) or 21,228.  It would appear that lots of people don't
   vote for as many people as the ballot says is the maximum.  In fact, the
   total isn't even *twice* the total number of valid ballots.

   By far  the  largest  reason for the disqualification of the ballots was
   lack  of  valid  signature.   I  suspect  people just forgot to sign the
   ballot.   I  can't  imagine  that  the  counters  actually  compare each
   signature  with  the  signature  card.   It'd probably be good to remind
   folks to sign the ballot in our handout literature.

I wonder what made so many of those ballots invalid.

-Glenn-

    
    RE: .0
    
    This is a 21.8% rejection rate.  17% rejection rate based on signatures
    or lack there of.  That's a LOT of invalid ballots.  If they contained
    2 votes each, we're talking about 4,000 votes.  Members definitely
    should be told exactly how to sign those ballots to make sure they
    aren't rejected.
    

�   Remember this  election  was  the one where the ballot said "vote for no
�   more  than three" but there were only two openings.  These results don't
�   talk  about  that  issue  at  all.   
    
    Isn't this addressed by this:
    
�	(1) More Votes Than Allowed per Ballot		   60
    
    Since only 60 people voted for more than 3 people, I don't think it
    would have much impact on the final outcome.
    
    It would be interesting to find out why there were so many
    invalidations due to improper signature, though.  It will also be
    interesting to see if the Special Meeting has an impact on voter
    turnout in the next election.  If it doesn't, the BoD might be right
    about the "small number of dissidents".

The question was whether the ballot *instructions* were valid. If there were
only two openings, it should have said "vote for no more than two". If
the ballot instructions were invalid, what does that say about the election?
Although at this point it's water under the bridge, it's still interesting
nonetheless.

As to the improper signatures, I was speculating that it would take an
aweful lot of work to compare each signature with the signature card. I bet
it was just that people forgot to sign the ballot.

Also interesting was that if I compare the total number of votes for all
candidates with the total number of ballots (valid), I arrive at the
conclusion that most people vote for only a single person, not two or
three.

RE: [my own] .1

oh right, I didn't see the reasons for the invalid ballots in the base note!

maybe I need new glasses...

-Glenn-