On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 13:59 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > 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.
No, there isn't. There is such a reason from the reading of the contract, though, which states that PRESENT is the "default default", as it were. -- ais523
