Curious.
Instead of cries of fraud, wouldn't it make more
sense to ask to see the raw data, from all datapoints?
I mean this seems a bit much in light of the fact that the math adds up, but here are some things to consider:
1. The results are correct and reflect the general direction and tone of the voters interested in an organization such as CASAA and what it aims to do, which may not be in sync with what people that do NOT share this vision believe, but are otherwise vocal and "popular".
2. The reporting is fraudulent.
3. The vote calculations did not work correctly
This last option is most important and needs a bit of explanation, The initial raw numbers did not compensate for anomalies that could skew the counts of a nominee, or in plain language...the very sort of "fraud" accusation that was floated here (without a shred of solid evidence outside of anecdote, I might add).
That is to say, before the validation filters were applied, (as outlined publicly in this post
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/casaa/44903-casaa-voting-validation.html) it is possible that say the, more...ardent supporters of any particular nominee could have done any of the following:
- Used fake email addresses to vote multiple times
- Voted multiple times above a reasonable threshold from the same machine
- Voted multiple times from different email addresses
- Etc
Which brings us to:
4. The anti-fraud mechanisms detected anomalies and erased suspect votes, thus adjusting the previously observed raw numbers
Now, it is up to the reader to decide which of these scenarios is the most *likely* given the circumstances and the you know, math and ability to verify the data...or to perhaps suggest others.
Given this, I am inclined to lean towards Options 1 and 4 in concert.
-K
Webby! 
