On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:55 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (Note, however, that it is not certain that the Assessor > understood it correctly; Murphy recently admitted to treating unfilled > tickets as no-vote rather than PRESENT.)
I don't believe there's any reason from a reading of the rules to interpret a vote conditionally endorsing a voter who doesn't exist and thus cast no votes as a vote of PRESENT.
