31 May 2003: Amend Voting Procedures (Various Changes)
From: Molly Mockford <avpvote@mockfords.clara.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 01:14:14 +0100
Subject: RESULT: Amend Voting Procedures (Various Changes)
Newsgroups: uk.net.news.announce,uk.net.news.config,uk.net.news.management
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
======================================================================
RESULT: Amend Voting Procedures (Various Changes)
SUMMARY OF RESULTS:
Proposal 1 - "Handling of errors and objections" - Option A wins
Proposal 2 - "Information required in the ballot" - Option B wins
Proposal 3 - "Voter's Name" - Status Quo wins
Proposal 4 - "Multiple Voting" - Option B wins
======================================================================
Voting closed at 23:59:59 BST on Sunday 18th May 2003
Proponent : Charles Lindsey <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk>
Primary Votetaker: Molly Mockford <avpvote@mockfords.clara.co.uk>
Secondary Votetaker: David Mahon <avpvote@amigo.co.uk>
======================================================================
Distribution:
uk.net.news.announce,uk.net.news.management,uk.net.news.config
======================================================================
The full results follow below in the following order:
1) Information on the ballot
2) Detail of results
3) Individual Vote Details
4) Votetaker's Comments
5) Voting and Appeal Guidelines
6) Rationale and Proposals
======================================================================
1) INFORMATION ON THE BALLOT
58 messages were received at the voting address during the period of
the vote, consisting of:
49 valid and counted votes
6 votes subsequently superseded by the voters
1 rejected vote (see below)
1 test
1 e-mail regarding the vote
======================================================================
2) DETAIL OF RESULTS:
Proposal 1 - "Handling of errors and objections"
The three sections included in each option of this proposal are:
(i) Incorrect CFVs
(ii) Objections during the voting period
(iii) Objections to the result
There are two options (texts (i) and (iii) are common to both):
Option A: (ii) Committee may halt CFV upon appeal
Option B: (ii) Only UKVoting may halt CFV upon appeal
STAGE ONE - Options compared to Status Quo
Option A preferred to Status Quo by 35 votes to 14 (21)
Status Quo preferred to Option B by 27 votes to 18 (9)
Status Quo preferred to Re-Open Discussion by 30 votes to 14 (16)
Only option A beats Status Quo by 12 or more votes. Accordingly, it
wins and Stage Two is not necessary.
Proposal 2 - "Information required in the ballot"
There are two options:
Option A: Mandatory questions re voter's identity
Option B: Optional questions re voter's identity
STAGE ONE - Options compared to Status Quo
Option A preferred to Status Quo by 28 votes to 18 (10)
Option B preferred to Status Quo by 30 votes to 16 (14)
Status Quo preferred to Re-Open Discussion by 30 votes to 14 (16)
Only option B beats Status Quo by 12 or more votes. Accordingly, it
wins and Stage Two is not necessary.
Proposal 3 - "Voter's Name"
There are three options:
Option A: Any pseudonym allowed for posters and lurkers
Option B: Any pseudonym allowed for existing posters only
Option C: Pseudonym to be already well-established on Usenet
STAGE ONE - Options compared to Status Quo
Status Quo preferred to Option A by 27 votes to 19 (8)
Status Quo preferred to Option B by 30 votes to 15 (15)
Option C preferred to Status Quo by 26 votes to 17 (11)
Status Quo preferred to Re-Open Discussion by 34 votes to 10 (24)
No option beats Status Quo by 12 or more votes. Accordingly, Status
Quo wins and Stage Two is not necessary.
Proposal 4 - "Multiple Voting"
STAGE ONE - Options compared to Status Quo
There are two options:
Option A: Take last vote from fraudulent multivoters
Option B: Reject all votes from fraudulent multivoters
Status Quo preferred to Option A by 22 votes to 21 (1)
Option B preferred to Status Quo by 33 votes to 13 (20)
Status Quo preferred to Re-Open Discussion by 31 votes to 13 (18)
Only Option B beats Status Quo by 12 or more votes. Accordingly, it
wins and Stage Two is not necessary.
======================================================================
3) INDIVIDUAL VOTE DETAILS
To make formatting simpler, I have listed the names of the voters first,
assigning each of them a number. This number is then repeated against
the relevant row of voting details.
- ------------------------------
1 {R} {R} & semolina gro
2 Adam D. Barratt vote+avp+2003-05 & adam-barratt kugro
3 Alan Fleming af & etrigan gro
4 Alan Ford alan & whirlnet kuoc
5 Alan LeHun UKvote & lehun ! clara kuoc
6 Alex Holden voting & alexholden kuoc
7 Anthony Naggs amn & ubik ! demon kuoc
8 Anthony R. Gold bigfoot & davros gro
9 Barry Dorrans barryd & idunno gro
10 Barry Salter ukvotes & salterg ! demon kuoc
11 Brett Paul Dunbar brett ! dunbar & dimetrodon ! demon kuoc
12 Brian Brian & bjforster ! force9 kuoc
13 Charles Bryant xavp ! vote ! ch & chch ! demon kuoc
14 Charles Lindsey chl & clerew ! man kuca
15 Chris Croughton chris & keristor gro
16 Clive Feather xavpvote & davros gro
17 Clive R Robertson voteproc2 & clive kugro
18 Dave Dave & community-spirit ! demon kuoc
19 Dave Mason xavpvote & sarnie kugro
20 Dave Mayall dave & research-group kuoc
21 David Uri daviduri & bigfoot moc
22 Dick Gaughan dickg & dickalba ! demon kuoc
23 fred fred & fredc ! demon kuoc
24 Graham Drabble graham ! drabble & lineone ten
25 Ian Jackson ijackson & chiark ! greenend kugro
26 JBM jpb8 & duke ude
27 Jezza jezza & hotwells ! freeserve kuoc
28 Jonathan Wheeler J ! F ! Wheeler & rl kuca
29 Kevin Andreoli kevin & andreoli kuoc
30 Lt. Cmdr. Jim jim & us-lot gro
31 Mark Eller Marell & ellmar ! demon kuoc
32 Mark Goodge mark & good-stuff kuoc
33 Mike Fleming mike & tauzero kuoc
34 Mike Tullett mtullett & ntlworld moc
35 mysteron mysteron & zetnet kuoc
36 Owen Rees owen ! rees & tesco ten
37 Paul Harper paul & harper ten
38 Pekka P. Pirinen ppp & pirinen ! demon kuoc
39 Pete Aspinall aspen3 & btinternet moc
40 Peter Munn replyhere-use-same-subjectline & pearce-neptune ! demon kuoc
41 Peter Robinson pmrobinson & gmx ten
42 Peter Smyth psmyth & ukf ten
43 Philip Powell philip & blencathra kugro
44 Rob Linham rob_linham & yahoo kuoc
45 squire squireb & bryhod99 ! demon kuoc
46 srcrothers S ! R ! Crothers & rl kuca
47 Steph Peters urcy & sandbenders ! demon kuoc
48 Steve Firth vote & malloc kuoc
49 Tim Sharrock tim & sharrock kugro
<Proposal 1> <Proposal 2> <-Proposal 3-> <Proposal 4>
A B SQ ROD A B SQ ROD A B C SQ ROD A B SQ ROD
1 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 5 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3
2 2 1 3 4 2 1 3 4 1 2 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
3 1 4 2 3 4 1 2 3 2 - - 1 3 3 1 2 4
4 1 2 - - 4 1 2 3 - - - - - - 1 - -
5 1 4 3 2 2 1 4 3 1 2 3 4 5 1 4 3 2
6 - 1 2 - 1 - 2 - - - 2 1 - - 1 2 -
7 4 2 1 3 1 4 2 3 4 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3
8 1 4 2 3 1 4 3 2 5 4 1 3 2 4 1 3 2
9 1 - - - - 1 - - - 1 - - - - 1 - -
10 1 2 - - 2 1 - - 4 2 1 1 3 2 1 2 3
11 1 4 3 2 4 1 3 2 1 2 3 5 4 3 1 4 2
12 1 4 2 3 1 4 2 3 4 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3
13 4 3 1 2 4 3 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 1 2
14 1 4 3 2 3 1 4 2 2 4 1 3 5 2 1 4 3
15 1 2 3 4 4 1 2 4 2 3 4 1 5 1 1 2 3
16 2 4 3 1 2 1 3 2 1 5 5 3 2 2 3 4 1
17 2 1 3 4 1 2 3 4 4 2 1 3 5 1 2 3 4
18 4 2 3 1 1 4 3 2 5 4 3 2 1 4 1 3 2
19 3 3 1 2 4 3 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 1 2
20 1 4 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 4 5 2 3 4 1 2 3
21 1 2 4 3 1 2 4 3 3 2 1 5 4 3 1 4 2
22 4 2 1 3 4 2 1 3 5 4 2 1 3 3 4 1 2
23 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 5 5 5 1 5 4 4 1 4
24 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 4 3 1 2 5 2 1 3 4
25 1 4 3 2 1 3 4 2 5 4 1 2 3 3 1 2 4
26 1 3 2 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 - 1 - -
27 1 3 2 4 4 1 2 3 1 5 4 2 3 1 3 2 4
28 1 4 2 3 2 1 3 4 2 1 4 3 - 1 3 2 4
29 1 4 2 3 3 1 2 4 4 2 1 3 4 4 1 2 3
30 1 3 2 4 2 1 3 4 1 4 2 3 5 3 4 2 1
31 4 1 3 2 4 3 1 2 3 5 4 1 2 3 4 1 2
32 4 1 2 3 1 4 2 3 5 5 1 2 3 4 4 1 2
33 4 1 2 3 2 1 3 4 2 3 1 4 5 2 1 3 4
34 1 2 4 3 1 2 4 3 5 2 1 4 3 4 1 2 3
35 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 5 5 2 5 4 4 1 4
36 1 2 4 3 2 1 4 3 3 2 1 5 4 1 2 4 3
37 4 1 2 3 2 1 3 4 5 4 1 2 3 2 1 3 4
38 1 3 2 4 2 1 3 4 5 4 1 2 3 1 2 2 3
39 1 - - - 1 - - - 1 - - - - - 2 - -
40 1 2 3 4 2 3 1 4 4 5 1 2 3 3 4 1 2
41 1 4 3 2 - - - - - - - - - 1 2 3 4
42 2 3 1 4 3 2 1 4 4 3 2 1 5 3 1 2 4
43 1 3 4 2 1 4 3 2 4 5 1 3 2 2 1 4 3
44 1 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 5 2 1 4 3 4 1 3 2
45 1 4 4 2 4 1 4 2 1 4 4 2 3 1 4 4 2
46 1 - - - 1 - - - 1 - - - - 1 - - -
47 1 4 2 3 4 1 2 3 5 2 1 3 4 - 1 - 2
48 1 4 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 4 4 2 3 1 4 2 3
49 1 3 2 4 2 1 4 3 1 4 2 5 3 1 2 3 4
REJECTED VOTE
Locoman <r65536 & hushmail moc> - vote submitted via anonymous
webmail in breach of Instruction (3) of the Standard Voting
instructions. The voter was encouraged to re-submit the vote from
an acceptable account but, despite discussion of the matter, did
not do so.
======================================================================
4) VOTETAKER'S COMMENTS
Due to a problem with the votetaker's mail filters, two votes were
bounced because the Subject header spanned more than one line (the
filter treated this as a non-printable character). Both voters re-
submitted their votes successfully. (If they had not, the originals
could have been retrieved from the UKVoting server.)
Four voters appeared to cast their vote as though it were a "first
past the post" vote. Each of them was e-mailed to remind them that
they were entitled to express more detailed preferences; none chose
to do so.
The great majority of voters had no difficulty in completing the
question about the e-mail address they used when posting to Usenet,
although a few chose to leave this blank, and it was possible to
validate their votes without asking for further information. A small
number of voters did not understand the request (a reply of "see my
recent posts" is circular logic, since the information is requested
specifically in order to identify such posts) and a detailed
explanation was sent.
======================================================================
5) VOTING AND APPEAL GUIDELINES
This vote was conducted by a neutral third party member of UKVoting.
UKVoting is a group of independent votetakers who count votes on
behalf of the uk.* hierarchy and other 3rd parties.
The rules under which votes for the uk.* hierarchy are taken are
posted regularly to uk.net.news.announce or can be found at the
following URL:
<ftp://sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk/usenet/news-info/news.answers/uk/voting>
The UKVoting web pages can be found at <http://www.ukvoting.org.uk/>
There is a five day discussion period after these results are posted
to uk.net.news.announce.
Allegations of irregularity should be sent to control@usenet.org.uk
======================================================================
6) RATIONALE AND PROPOSALS
6.1. RATIONALE
The story so far:
The previous proponent disappeared in a fit of pique, leaving behind
him a mixed bag of proposals.
I then stepped in to ensure that these matters (and especially what
to do about multivotes) can finally be resolved. Please note that I
am doing this in my personal capacity, and not in my capacity as
Deputy Control.
Proposal 1 addresses who may do what at each stage of the CFV.
Initially, the Proponent, the Votetaker and if necessary the
Committee have to get the CFV right.
Then, once the vote is fully under way, two options are offered:
either the Committee has power to halt a vote (and/or restart it),
but not to demand changes, or else only UKVoting can halt a vote or
deal with objections. However, having said that, I will fight tooth
and nail against the 2nd one - in my view it is _essential_ that the
Committee be able to halt a vote if the votetaker(s) really does go
rogue.
And finally, the Committee can (as now) rule on objections during
the Result phase.
Proposal 2 address the matter of whether questions regarding the
voter's previous posts to Usenet are optional or mandatory. Both
options are offered.
Proposal 3 deals with what sorts of pseudonym a person can vote
under (I have removed the former option to require no voting name at
all).
The principal change remains Proposal 4, which everybody agrees
needs to be decided, but with a 50:50 split as to how. It started
with fierce discussions arising from multiple votes allegedly
submitted during the uk.current-events.post-11-sept vote. It was
clear that there were two schools of thought
1. That the last vote submitted by a multivoter should be
counted;
2. That all votes submitted by a multivoter should be disallowed;
and that the matter would have to be resolved by a formal vote. That
still remains the case.
Notes:
======
Proposal 1 - "Handling of errors and objections"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If the CFV when first submitted is incorrect in some form, there is
provision for it to be sorted out between the parties concerned.
Note that this takes place _before_ the procedures for dealing with
appeals during the vote kick in.
Next, once a vote has started, OPTION A gives the Committee the
power to halt it if it is not being conducted in accordance with the
rules. It might be restarted (e.g. if it was just some wording in
the CFV that needed changing) or it might have to go back to the RFD
stage (e.g. if the proponent had made more than "minor" changes).
The Committee's power is limited to halting the vote. However, an
alternative is provided of allowing it to continue (e.g. with an
extended voting period), but only if the votetaker/voting
organisation agrees.
Alternatively, OPTION B gives sole power for handling objections
during the running of the vote to UKVoting. All the Committee can do
is to resolve appeals (even leading to voiding the whole vote)
_after_ the result is published.
Proposal 2 - "Information required in the ballot"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rule 6 is rewritten. The old "Votes SHALL be explicit" wording,
which had been emasculated in successive changes, is restored to its
original function which is (as in the Big 8 Rules) to make it clear
that you vote on the questions as asked, and don't try to "write in"
extra conditions or options.
Then it lists all the things the voter is *required* to fill in.
These always include his "name" (see proposal 3) and a valid email
address. Under Option A, they also include questions to identify his
previous posts to Usenet (or he affirms that there are none). Under
Option B these questions are optional, though it is hoped that the
great majority of voters will co-operate by answering them.
Finally, there is a sentence to indicate that the votetaker MAY
email the voter for further clarifications.
Proposal 3 - "Voters Name"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This addresses the issue of "Voters Name" which currently does not
have any well defined meaning. It is always the case that the Voter
may use his Real Name; it is pseudonyms that are tricky. There are
three options.
A. Anyone (lurkers included) can use any pseudonym, provided there
is no attempt at deception.
B. Only non-lurkers can use such pseudonyms. Lurkers must use their
Real Name.
C. Only previous posters can use pseudonyms, and then those
pseudonyms must already be "well-established" on Usenet.
Option C is closest to present UKVoting practice. Option A gives the
greatest scope for anonymity.
Proposal 4 - "Multiple Voting"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This addresses multiple voting. In the first option multiple votes
believed to be from a single person are resolved in favour of the
last received vote.
The alternative viewpoint of discarding all votes where multiple
voting is believed to have taken place is also provided.
The wording proposed for both these options is an adaptation of the
"Big 8" wording. This wording was widely supported in the earlier
discussions; observe that it resolves, in the "Big 8" manner, the
matter of an email address used by more than one person.
END RATIONALE
=====================================================================
6.2. PROPOSALS
PROPOSAL 1 - "Handling of errors and objections"
- ------------------------------------------------
There are two options (texts (i) and (iii) are common to both)
Option A: Committee may halt CFV upon appeal
Option B: Only UKVoting may halt CFV upon appeal
(i) Incorrect CFVs
Both Options
~~~~~~~~~~~~
In the first paragraph of part 1 of the section entitled "The Vote",
Which presently reads:
If after the discussion following an RFD it becomes necessary
to hold a vote, a call for votes (CFV) shall be formulated by
a member of UKVoting, acting for and in consultation with the
proponent, and mailed to control@usenet.org.uk (as moderator
of uk.net.news.announce). If the CFV is in the correct form
(see below), Control will post it to all those newsgroups and
mailing lists that the latest RFD was posted to.
extend the last sentence to include:
"...; otherwise, it shall be referred back to the votetaker
who, in consultation with the Committee and the proponent as
necessary, shall rectify the problem.
NOTE: The word "votetaker" above remains whether or not the current
proposal "Amend the Voting Procedures (Role of UKVoting)" is accepted.
(ii) Objections during the voting period
At the end of the section entitled "The Vote" insert a new numbered
paragraph:
Option A:
~~~~~~~~~
"The votetaker may halt and, if appropriate, restart the Vote
if any irregularity becomes apparent. Moreover, in the event
of any allegation that the Vote is being conducted in
violation of these rules which seems to the Committee to be
well founded, the Committee may require such a halt and/or
restart. Alternatively (but only with the agreement of the
votetaker), it may be allowed to continue after rectification
of the problem."
Option B:
~~~~~~~~~
"Prior to the publication of the Result, any objection which
alleges that the Vote is being conducted in violation of
these rules shall be forwarded to the Co-ordinator of
UKVoting. The members of UKVoting (excluding any who are the
proponent or otherwise directly affected by the vote) shall
then be solely responsible for determining whether the vote
should be voided, restarted, or allowed to continue with or
without alterations."
The words "votetaker" and "UKVoting" are to be replaced by
"votetaking organisation" if and when the current proposal "Amend
the Voting Procedures (Role of UKVoting)" is accepted.
(iii) Objections to the result
Both Options
~~~~~~~~~~~~
In the existing paragraph 5 in section "The Result", which presently
reads:
All objections and appeals will be decided by the Committee.
Their decisions will be posted to uk.net.news.announce.
ADD the words "to the result" after "appeals".
PROPOSAL 2 - "Information required in the ballot"
- -------------------------------------------------
There are two options.
Replace Rule 6 in section "The Vote" with the following:
Option A: Mandatory questions re voter's identity
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Votes SHALL be explicit answers to the questions as put. They
SHALL be submitted on the ballot paper in accordance with the
voting instructions and SHALL include, in addition to the
actual vote
i) The voter's name [as defined below];
ii) The voter's email address, which must be valid since the
votetaker will send email to it, and it is to be
published in the result;
iii) Such information as may be requested for the purpose of
identifying that voter's posts to usenet or,
alternatively, an affirmation that they do not currently
post to usenet.
The votetaker will determine the validity of each vote with
respect to the voting instructions and MAY seek further
clarification from the voter. If the votetaker determines that
a vote is invalid, the votetaker SHOULD so inform the voter as
specified in section 11.
Option B: Optional questions re voter's identity
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Votes SHALL be explicit answers to the questions as put. They
SHALL be submitted on the ballot paper in accordance with the
voting instructions and SHALL include, in addition to the
actual vote
i) The voter's name [as defined below];
ii) The voter's email address, which must be valid since the
votetaker will send email to it, and it is to be
published in the result.
They MAY also include such further information as may be
requested for the purpose of identifying that voter's posts to
usenet or, alternatively, an affirmation that they do not
currently post to usenet.
The votetaker will determine the validity of each vote with
respect to the voting instructions and MAY seek further
clarification from the voter. If the votetaker determines that
a vote is invalid, the votetaker SHOULD so inform the voter as
specified in section 11.
The words "[as defined below]" are to be omitted if Proposal 3
fails.
Proposal 3 - "Voters Name"
- --------------------------
There are three options.
Insert the following paragraph at the end of Rule 6 in section "The
Vote" (as possibly modified in Proposal 2):
Option A: Any pseudonym allowed for posters and lurkers
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The voter's name as submitted on the ballot form SHALL be
either their real name or a pseudonym (not necessarily one
previously associated with that voter), provided such
pseudonym does not appear to have been used with intent to
deceive."
Option B: Any pseudonym allowed for existing posters only
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The voter's name as submitted on the ballot form SHALL be
either their real name or, if they already post to Usenet, a
pseudonym (not necessarily one previously associated with that
voter on Usenet), provided such pseudonym does not appear to
have been used with intent to deceive."
Option C: Pseudonym to be already well-established on Usenet
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The voter's name as submitted on the ballot form SHALL be
either their real name, or a well-established pseudonym that
they have previously used when posting to Usenet, provided
such pseudonym does not appear to have been used with intent
to deceive."
PROPOSAL 4 - "Multiple Voting"
- ------------------------------
There are two options.
Insert after existing paragraph numbered 4 in section "The Result"
the following new paragraph, and renumber the paragraphs in that
section of the document appropriately:
Option A: Take last vote from fraudulent multivoters
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If multiple votes are submitted using a single email
address, only the last one of those votes received by the
votetaker within the voting period will be counted, even if
that email address is used by more than one person. Where it
is believed that several votes have been submitted by one
person using multiple email addresses in an attempt to
bypass these restrictions, those votes SHALL be resolved in
favour of the last one of those votes received by the
votetaker within the voting period."
Option B: Reject all votes from fraudulent multivoters
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If multiple votes are submitted using a single email
address, only the last one of those votes received by the
votetaker within the voting period will be counted, even if
that email address is used by more than one person. Where it
is believed that several votes have been submitted by one
person using multiple email addresses in an attempt to
bypass these restrictions, those votes SHALL all be
rejected."
END PROPOSALS
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBPtfz1mOfGXkh8vHZAQG0RQP9HfsqfCdrsEWL45CsUD8TM0iErYH/xcbF
CaRfUmDPz2dv+5+BvR/RgqOpqx+hi0ya+o3qtWH9Uw3YtG0LROeEEsAr7CkMOjnz
05EM3M0UTje62QXBuYxUIOFjxgw3xPmJ1vQ2X5UnDEQYZpYG0Yf1Agc1URGarDfn
r4owv70stdw=
=KrM1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
You can also see the raw article.
Back ot the UKVoting homepage
