As for the back and forth in this thread involving Ms. Peck, here's what she stated on the Forum (in pertinent part) on July 12 last year:

"It seems that the electronic and paper voting systems are not interconnected to the email blasts. This is evident where voters who voted by paper ballot received email confirmation that their vote was received, yet now have received a reminder to vote with a hot link to vote electronically. This link allows voters to vote twice, once by paper and once electronically. Last night, I spoke with the election chair, Steve Ransdall. I explained that I voted via paper ballot, received confirmation that my ballot was received, and yet still received a reminder email with a voting link to vote online. Mr. Ransdall assured me that the link would not work, but I informed him that it was indeed working, and can provide screenshots as evidence. He suggested that I write to MK Elections, which I have done."

Now, in her post earlier today, she states that she told Steve Ransdell that she had in fact voted twice -- something that was conspicuously left out of her post last year, although her post back then (in my view) suggested she might attempt to vote twice to "stress test" what she was claiming (incorrectly) to be a weakness in the system. Notably, her post today suggests she had accidentally voted twice; but the post last year calls that pretty starkly into question. And to the extent MK may have known what she had done, and I have no knowledge of this at all, it's presumably because she contacted MK herself about this, as she stated in her post last year (but notably does not mention in her posts on this now). As has previously been discussed, the system does not allow two votes by the same property owner -- only the first one cast and received is counted.  

I encourage you to vote in this year's election, Mr. Enderle. The election system is a sound one, even when people attempt to vote twice.