Mike is correct, plus it doesn't make sense to stop people from voting for
themselves. often a signal vote can make or break an election.
Jon
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Michael Gilbert <
michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 13:16:18 -0500, William Chambers wrote:
> > A
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 13:16:18 -0500, William Chambers wrote:
> And to be clear, I presume you 'cannot' vote for yourself? ^_^ Makes sense
> not
> to allow that since any intelligent person would do so.
Actually, in real-world elections, you are allowed to vote for
yourself. The idea is to avoid
Why not? Teh president can vote for himself
Jason Chandler
Toledo ReLoCo Lead
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 1:16 PM, William Chambers
wrote:
> On Monday, November 22, 2010 00:11:48 Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> > Sorry! Yes! 3 people, top vote-getters get the election. Sorry!
> >
> > In the event of
Sorry! Yes! 3 people, top vote-getters get the election. Sorry!
In the event of a tie, we'll figure it out :)
-Paul
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Jason Chandler wrote:
> Are we voting for one? or 3?
>
> Jason Chandler
> Toledo ReLoCo team lead
>
> On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 11:58 PM, Paul Tagl
Are we voting for one? or 3?
Jason Chandler
Toledo ReLoCo team lead
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 11:58 PM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> Hello, World!
>
> Welcome to the election 2010 vote!
>
> I'm now accepting votes for the Ohio Council. Please send an email to
> me with who you'd like to vote for. You
5 matches
Mail list logo
