Gill demanded an apology from the President 90 days before 9-11, he claims to work as a lobbyist but is unregistered, and everything he touches is shrouded in scandal. Why would S.L. and C.S. put their careers on the line? If anything it validates my concerns.

As far as I’m concerned throw out the 51st., and lets do it again. I saw cars with out of state plates and Gill stickers. I was there at 7:30, thought we’d begin at 9:15 a.m. and vote by 9:45 and I’d be on my way. Didn’t happen, I couldn’t wait any longer, left without voting.

Oh yes, and don’t bother reminding me, I know the mantra, “not ALL Muslims are terrorists.”

McQuigg voted for a very anti libertarian cameras at traffic stops. Looks like big brother to me.

Mike May comes from Tom Davis camp with an 2006 American Conservative Union rating of 56%. Most other Virginia republicans get 80 to 90 or 100 per cent.

Gill has close ties to Clinton funderaisers and is from the Bush administration which is not a conservative administration.

If anything these “conservatives” are out of step with the mainstream of the conservative movement.

He doesn’t deserve to be “pulled out” of the hole. Oh, not to forget the others who dug holes for themselves either…and you know who they are.

Stewart demonstrated too much enthusiasm for Gill in the 51st, and when the Dem’s attack Gill this fall, the voters may end up throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Cuccinelli then advised Gill in the latter’s campaign for the nomination. Cuccinelli told someone that Greg L and Jonathan Mark are full of excrement. I was surprised that Cuccinelli knew my name.

What impact, if any, does Ken Cuccinelli have in PWCRC politics?

Also, Grover Norquist was at the 3/31/07 Gill campaign kickoff rally. Norquist’s patronage of Gill had a lot to do with getting Gill hired at DHS for three years and keeping him there after Gill’s Alamoudi scandal broke.

Charles of Two Conservatives photographed Cuccinelli posing with Bolling and Norquist at the 3/31/07 rally. Interestingly, Norquist was not wearing a Gill button, while Cuccinelli and Bolling were.

Someone told me that Norquist has very little influence in the PWCRC. Is that the case?

There is another piece to this, the faction expects the Chairman to abide by their rules. Murphy must have been a thorn in their operation, so it runs a bit deeper. Faction is DD, CS, FG, and their stooges are MM and MM.

Less than one year later times have changed, mistakes have been made, and as Greg said, the people who stand to lose the most in 2007 are the candidates closest to Kopko, CS, FG, MM, and MM.

Voter turn out will be lower in 2007, and party loyalty doesn’t run as deep since the most recent debacle in our Administration. Voters are turned off. Newt Gingrich is turned off. People care least about Party and most about honesty and integrity. PWCRC has become the far right conservative GOP party which doesn’t serve the majority of Republican’s. 37% of American’s consider themselves Democrats, 31% Republican and 31% Independent. If PWCRC forces out those other than their far right base, the Moderates and Independents in PWC have grown stronger and need to be taken seriously this election.

Looking at the numbers, factoring in the disharmony brought on by conventions, the unelectable Faisal Gill and robot’s McQuigg & May, it is sound and sensible logic that a change in leadership is the only hope of the PWCRC redeeming itself in time for November and possibly even saving the Chairmanship.

The Chairman of the PWCRC is determined by convention. In the case of Murphy (the encumbent ) vs. Kopko, Kopko won by only 1 vote. I concur with the logic applied by Ms. Altman. Denial on the part of the Prince William GOP to stand behind questionable practices will be most harmful to the GOP in November. The executive body of the Unit by electing to make a change in leadership is going to be more effective than a Chairman with questionable ethics making a plea for party unity.

Well Jimmy boy, let’s take a look at the actual PWC (a supposedly “safe” Republican County) election results in 2006 and see just how effective Kopko’s leadership has been. Granted, Wolf and Tom Davis won their portion of the County, without a lot of help from the PWCRC, which wasn’t necessary…they had their own operations and are generally considered “safe” candidates. Then we get to the good stuff:

U.S. Senate
Webb (D) 50.51%
Allen (R) 48.13%

You say “Kopko and his PWCRC band” had no role in George Allen’s missteps…” (one of which was depending upon the local organization for his campaign presence), yet when was the last time that a Republican U.S. Senate candidate DIDN’T win PWC by an overwhelming margin? SBE online records don’t go back that far.

1st Congressional District
Oddonnell (D) 55.11%
J.A. Davis (R) 43.24%

Good thing she had the rest of her District to fall back on.

50th House of Delegates District
Rishell (D) 50.09%
Miller (R) 49.85%

A difference of only 11 votes, and only then because Miller largely depended upon his own organization in those County precincts. Granted, the City of Manassas Park did just a tad worse than the County (Rishell: 50.38%; Miller: 49.31%), but we all know what happened to THAT Republican Committee. It’s a good thing that the City of Manassas Republican Committee was sufficiently organized to pull it out and get him 52.80% of the total vote.

As I should have said Jimmy, it’s not surprising that those two victories (Stewart and May) are the only two that you can lay at the feet of Kopko and his PWCRC band.

You speak the truth. There appears to be a small cult that (claims to) rule the party. Kopko, Gill, and McQuigg will soon be the only memebrs left to drink the Kool-aid after November. How does one get to be the “chairman” of the party anyway ?

In that convention TK elected not to open a dialog on whether to re-issue the Call, he acted swiftly and independently doing so just when Beauchamp left for a week vacation, and then closed the re-filing date on the day of her return.

TK notified Mrs. Beauchamp by email, an email she never received. TK later admitted he had a problem with his email. As a result Lucy missed the filing deadline and when she called TK to resolve it, he said “Take it up with RPV!”

Thus a life-long Republican, with county wide name recognition, re-elected to serve as the Chairman of Prince William County School Board repeatedly is running as an Independent.

Unfair and biased leadership, isn’t leadership at all. Kopko needs to go before Unity can be taken seriously.

“”"there were no ballots “identifiable as cast by persons not entitled to vote,” since the overvotes easily could have been cast by people voting in the wrong precincts”"”

A person voting in the wrong precinct is not entitled to vote, just as a person voting in the wrong country is not entitled to vote.

A citizen of Switzerland but not the US cannot vote in US elections. Such a person is “not entitled to vote” when discussing US elections. That they could have voted in Switzerland is irrelevant.

A resident of Precinct X is no more entitled to vote in Precinct Y than is a citizen of Switzerland. The persons Jim Young described, even if they exist, are “identifiable as cast by persons not entitled to vote.”

“”"(remember, “Team Lucas’” self-serving assumptions are not evidence, and there has been nothing but surmise about the source of those ballots);”"”

The source of the extra ballots in the two precincts is irrelevant. They were cast by persons not entitled to cast them. Whether those casting the ballots were residents of another precinct, another country or another solar system is completely irrelevant.

“”" and (b) regardless, those ballots were assumed to be for Gill, “”"

No one knows how many such ballots there are. We know from my previous posting that the number of such Invalid ballots is equal to the number of overvotes PLUS the number of delegates who went Home without voting.

No one knows how many delegates went home without voting, so no one knows how many invalid ballots there are. If you assume the invalid votes were for Gill then the number of invalid votes potentially changed the election results in the two overvoted precincts.

“”"and were “excluded in determining the number of votes case for purpose of computing the majority.””"”

Young simply repeats like an idiot that all invalid votes were excluded. What is the basis for that claim? In fact, it is far more likely that at least one Delegate in the two overvoted precincts went home without voting. That means that not all invalid votes were excluded, since no one knows how many invalid votes there were.

“”"Application of the second sentence yields an identical result: even if one assumes that “any unidentifiable ballots were cast by persons not entitled to vote,” the second part of the two-part test (”there is any possibility that such ballots might affect the result”) is not met, since those ballots were assumed to be for Gill, thrown out for purposes of the totals, and he still won.”"”

Since James Young HAS NO IDEA how many invalid votes there were his perambulating about excluding all of them is simply errant nonsense. He and the Gill people cannot exclude all invalid votes becuase THEY DON”T KNOW HOW MANY THERE WERE!!!!!!!!

“”"Robert’s Rules do not invalidate an election without evidence that the irregularities would affect the results.”"”"

Wrong. Jim Young is not an accurate reader. There merely needs to be a possibility that the irregularity COULD have affected the result. Robert’s Rules states: “if there is any possibility that such ballots might affect the result, the entire ballot vote is null and void and a new ballot vote must be taken.”

What part of the above does Jim Young not understand?

“”"Put simply, there is no such evidence here,”"”

All that is needed is the possibility that the number of persons who went home without voting in the two overvoted districts, and therefore the number of invalid votes in those overvoted districts, was large enough to affect the results of the voting.

All I ask is that James Young read RRoO carefully and do the algebra, or show where the algebra I presented is incorrect.

There is no evidence that Kopko knows what algebra is. I would not trust him to analyze this type of problem. And really, no one should trust me either. But I am sure that there are mathematicians or algebra teachers in the PWCRC who can analyze these results.

And if there are not then such experts can be found. Although, really, it is only the innumerate who would argue that Young’s reasoning holds, and that the number of invalid votes could not have been larger than the number of overvotes.

The question is whether any of that matters. What I see is a establishment, led by Kopko and McQuigg, that was hell-bent on nominating Gill and was willing to break the rules to do it.

And they still are.

“”“if one or more ballots are identifiable as cast by persons not entitled to vote,”"”

We seem to agree that condition is met, since in the two overvoted districts the number of ballots was larger than the number of delegates.

“”"and it can be established that there are not other such ballots,”"”

It CANNOT be so determined.

In fact, the number of invalid votes could easily be larger than the number of overvotes. Let D be the number of delegates, Ov be the number of Overvotes, H be the number of persons who went home without voting, R be the number of recorded votes, V be the number of Valid votes, and I be the number of invalid votes.

(1) Then, by definition: R - D = Ov, where R >= D

We also know that the the number of Valid votes equals the number of delegates minus the number of Delegates who went home early without voting.

(2) So: V = D - H

And we know that all recorded votes are either valid or invalid, so:

(3) R = I + V

Substituting (3) into (1) gives:

(4) I + V - D = Ov where I + V > = D

And substituting (2) into (4) gives:

(5) I + D - H - D = I - H = Ov

Or:

(6) Ov + H = I

Equation (6) says that the number of Overvotes plus the number of Delegates who went home without voting equals the number of invalid votes.

However, we don’t know how many Delegates H went home without voting. If H > 0 then I > Ov. Thus I >= Ov but has no known value.

Therefore the requirement of Roberts Rules of Order that “it can be established that there are not other such ballots” fails. The remedy in that instance is irrelevant, since that instance did dot occur.

“If there is evidence that any unidentifiable ballots were cast by persons not entitled to vote, “”"

Since no one knows which ballots in the overvoted precincts were cast by persons not entitled to vote, the invalid ballots are by definition “unidentifiable”.” Therefore the above condition is met.

“”"and if there is any possibility that such ballots might affect the result,”"”

There is indeed such a possiblity, since Ov + H = I. We don’t know what H is, so I could be larger than Gill’s narrow putative victory over Lucas. So the above condition is met.

“”"the entire ballot vote is null and void and a new ballot vote must be taken.””"

The conditions for a new ballot vote are thus met. Whatever it is that Kopko thinks he is investigating is not relevant. Kopko cannot know how many invalid votes there were because he cannot know how many people went home without voting.

Kopko’s entire “investigation” is simply a dilatory delaying tactic by a PAID employee of Faisal Gill.

Which of “our other elected Republicans” ran since Kopko became Chairman in April 2006?

Stalwart, perhaps you could direct me to the page of Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised (10th ed.), which is the governing authority under the Party Plan, to which you refer. I think I found it — and if I have, the observers were dead wrong in their recommendation — but I’d certainly like to know if you’re referring to something different.

Your comment sent me back to my copy, and the closest thing that I could find was on page 402, lines 26-34, where it holds that “if one or more ballots are identifiable as cast by persons not entitled to vote, and it can be established that there are not other such ballots, these ballots are excluded in determining the number of votes case for purpose of computing the majority. If there is evidence that any unidentifiable ballots were cast by persons not entitled to vote, and if there is any possibility that such ballots might affect the result, the entire ballot vote is null and void and a new ballot vote must be taken.”

So the problem (for Lucas), “ho”, is that application of this rule does not change the result, since: (a) there were no ballots “identifiable as cast by persons not entitled to vote,” since the overvotes easily could have been cast by people voting in the wrong precincts (remember, “Team Lucas’” self-serving assumptions are not evidence, and there has been nothing but surmise about the source of those ballots); and (b) regardless, those ballots were assumed to be for Gill, and were “excluded in determining the number of votes case for purpose of computing the majority.” Application of the second sentence yields an identical result: even if one assumes that “any unidentifiable ballots were cast by persons not entitled to vote,” the second part of the two-part test (”there is any possibility that such ballots might affect the result”) is not met, since those ballots were assumed to be for Gill, thrown out for purposes of the totals, and he still won.

Robert’s Rules do not invalidate an election without evidence that the irregularities would affect the results. Put simply, there is no such evidence here, unless “Team Lucas” contrives a way to disenfranchise whole precincts of voters.

As for “ho’s” comment that “Kopko can’t just ignore what the Roberts rules say, nor can can he discount the RPV reccomendations, whithout sacrificing his last shred of credibility and legitimacy,” Kopko would only “ignore what Roberts rules [sic] say” if he allowed the appeal from something not appealed to the Convention as a whole, and, if he considers the merits, attempts to reverse its determination by recounting ballots after disenfranchising whole precincts of voters.

Finally, Bryanna, whether Julie is the strongest or more Conservative candidate or not is now a moot point. She couldn’t even get the GOP nomination, which discredits the claim that she is a stronger candidate. I am somewhat surprised that you would waste your time by continuing this nonsense, no matter how you feel about Kopko.