| Revision as of 07:46, 8 March 2006 editAdam Carr (talk | contribs)26,681 edits Danby's preselection← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:28, 8 March 2006 edit undoDarrenRay (talk | contribs)907 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| *Strictly speaking Danby will not be preselected until the Public Office Selection Cttee votes, which I think will be on Thursday night. But his 75% local vote assures his endorsement. | *Strictly speaking Danby will not be preselected until the Public Office Selection Cttee votes, which I think will be on Thursday night. But his 75% local vote assures his endorsement. | ||
| *I cannot provide a published source for the preselection voting, since it has not been reported in the press (not as newsworthy as Hotham, obviously). I conducted the count and I can tell you that Danby polled 277 votes to van Leeuwen's 89, with 2 informal. You can take my word for it or not as you please. ] 07:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | *I cannot provide a published source for the preselection voting, since it has not been reported in the press (not as newsworthy as Hotham, obviously). I conducted the count and I can tell you that Danby polled 277 votes to van Leeuwen's 89, with 2 informal. You can take my word for it or not as you please. ] 07:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | ||
| So it's OK to assert things without published sources? I'm struggling to keep up with the complexity of the rules here. ] 08:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:28, 8 March 2006
Danby's preselection
- Strictly speaking Danby will not be preselected until the Public Office Selection Cttee votes, which I think will be on Thursday night. But his 75% local vote assures his endorsement.
- I cannot provide a published source for the preselection voting, since it has not been reported in the press (not as newsworthy as Hotham, obviously). I conducted the count and I can tell you that Danby polled 277 votes to van Leeuwen's 89, with 2 informal. You can take my word for it or not as you please. Adam 07:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
So it's OK to assert things without published sources? I'm struggling to keep up with the complexity of the rules here. DarrenRay 08:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)