tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7200761395363260502.post4449702351485645363..comments2023-05-11T14:01:56.018-07:00Comments on His Scribbler - 2017: Grace Grieving 5: Two listsJessica Renshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06772797916085422429noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7200761395363260502.post-92215914251417814472012-02-16T17:18:05.876-08:002012-02-16T17:18:05.876-08:00Jessica, You make a good point here, but I wanted ...Jessica, You make a good point here, but I wanted to give you the math I worked out. I understand the the vote may have been voided by the premise, but it would have required at least 58 additional voters who voted against the lowest-scoring elder (76%) to bring him below the 66.66% threshold for removal. If you think they denied 58 "No" voters their right, I'd keep contesting it, but if the number is smaller than that, I don't think it's worth contesting due to the fact that the final outcome would not have been impacted. I am guessing you'll probably say that it's really about how the procedure was handled, but I'm just talking about whether or not the group unable to vote would have made enough of a difference to impact the outcome. I actually voted against the SOF, and against several elders, but I wanted to do the math to see if those not allowed (who wanted) to vote had been allowed, would it have made a difference, and I can reasonably conclude that it would not have impacted the outcome, because I think it was less than 20 people, but I could be wrong. God bless.Anony Mouserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16830716421453397825noreply@blogger.com