Prior to my Sept. 14 posting, I had undertaken email discussions with the election committee chair in an effort to be sure I understood what the committee was communicating in its election report.  I started my inquiries with the chair about the unclarity of ballot/voter terminology before I disclosed the vote discrepancy on this forum (that is, I was doing my homework). 

On Friday (Sept. 16), the chair provided to me confirmation that my interpretation of the ballot ambiguity was correct.

With the ballot ambiguity cleared up by the chair's confirmation, I was then able to pose the crucial question to the chair concerning the vote discrepancy.  I documented my inquiry to the chair on this forum (Msg# 1170875) and I repeat that inquiry to the chair here:

Thank you for confirming that a total of 2839 ballots representing 2839 properties were counted.

Given that at most 3 votes could be on each of the 2839 ballots then at most 8517 votes could be on the 2839 ballots (2839 X 3 = 8517).

However, the committee reported that it counted a total of 9053 votes for all the candidates.

The committee reported 9053 votes which is 536 votes more than the 8517 maximum number of votes that could be on the 2839 ballots (9053 – 8517 = 536).

Please explain how that is possible.

Paula Gray 1027

Amy Peck 1451

Stuart Lakernick 1802

Monica Rakowski 1603

Josette Wheatley 1303

Steve Jacobs 1867

Total 9053

I HAVE RECEIVED THE CHAIR'S RESPONSE TO MY INQUIRY ON THE VOTE DISCREPANCY AND I NOW PRESENT IT HERE.

You are correct!
I have calls into IT and committee members to
re-check the number of paper ballots we counted
and will correct our report.
Of course, nobody is around over the weekend
so I will have the answers Monday at best.

Thanks for the vigilance,
Carol