|
day 10 wrap-up
|
Mar 20th, 2008 at 03:26am |
If the first election day is boring for everyone... the second one is even worse. In about 17 hours, the results will be announced.
Until then, let's entertain ourselves by talking about voter turnout. As of right now, we're a few votes shy of 2,000. I can remember days when the DSU voter turnout was around 5% - less than 1,000 people. I don't mean a decade I go, I mean like... 2003. 2004 saw high voter turnout (23%, if my memory is still with me). Since then we've levelled off in the 18-21% range. This year we might not break 20%. Why?
An email today went out to all students, reminding them to vote. Every year since 2004, when that email was first sent out, we've seen a major spike in the numbers. I don't have the 2004 numbers on me, but for the past 4 years, this is what the votes per hour looks like:
I've annotated it with when the bulk emails were sent out each year. You can see a BIT of spike in 2008, but not much, especially compared to previous years. It also drops much faster, another indication that the bulk email had little effect. Why? My guesses include:- Tremendous advertising work by the Elections Committee. Everyone had already heard about it by the first day, and those who wanted to voted on the first day. The spike at around 4pm on Tuesday supports this theory, as that came after a major push by the EC over Facebook and through societies.
- I understand the subject said "DSU Dispatch"; perhaps people are conditioned to delete those.
- Generally lower levels of interest among students at large; the result is they see the email, and can't be bothered. Last year's might have been artificially high because the Spaces Referendum raised the profile of the DSU among students.
- Fewer candidates. Less interesting selections. My own Union elections happened 2 weeks ago; I didn't vote. I went to the elections website, read all the profiles, and just didn't care who won. And I *never* miss a chance to vote, I voted every year at Dal, even before my DSU involvement.
Regardless, this drop in turnout worries me - if there are relatively more "DSU insiders" and friends of candidates voting, and fewer "everyman"-types voting, that's going to completely screw up my predictions. If you throw out a lot of the not-involved vote, Osmond will win by a few percent, Larkin will still win but not by as much, Hillman won't do as well as I expected, VAJ will still lose, HSA will do better, and I have no earthly idea what will happen with Senate (dsu-insiders are more likely to pick 3 candidates, friends are more likely to pick 1 candidate, and those not-involved are unpredictable... no idea what that means).
I've also graphed cumulative turnout per-hour (with the overnight hours lumped together a bit).
That shows that despite a good showing late on the first day, we're tracking low relative to previous years.
If history is any indicator, that means the aftermath will see a lot of finger pointing. Tradition is that the Elections Committee will be blamed.
I'm not sure who the leading authority on DSU elections is, but I'm pretty sure any list of the top 10 includes me. If you are a candidate for that list, you already know that the primary factors in voter turnout include a) level of the Union's engagement and visibility with students throughout the year, b) the number of candidates, c) the visibility of candidates, and d) the level of controversy. The Student Spaces referendum had turnout of 27%, and that was controversial and highly visible; also, its impact on everyone was clear and immediate. The year DSU elections turnout hit 23%, there were 25 candidates and a referendum question about DalOut.
The Elections Committee, which every year tries their damndest to get out the vote, can increase the number by some percentage, but they can only work with what they are given. Few candidates, low visibility on Carleton and in residences... it's a tough situation. So if you hear someone blame the EC for the voter turnout, I suggest you ignore them. Voter turnout is everyone's responsibility.
Comments:
Anonymous Coward says:
[Mar 20th @ 03:45am]
How's about location demographics? Any idea where students are voting from?
howmuchyouknow says:
[Mar 20th @ 07:29am]
Can you see who the votes are coming in for?
mike says:
[Mar 20th @ 08:45am]
I have no idea where students are voting from.
I also have no idea how students are voting; I find out when elections are over. If I could see the results, I would never have continued to talk about predictions.
Incognito fraidy cat says:
[Mar 20th @ 09:58am]
DSU ELECTIONS - VOTE NOW!
To members of Residence Charity Face-Off Game
Courtney Larkin
Today at 12:03am
Reply
Hey!
DSU Election voting is taking place RIGHT NOW!
So click on over to:
www.dsu.ca
And do what's best for the union and vote!
You have $113 reasons to do it : )
Cheers,
Courtney
-
Perhaps that will spike voting from the Residence Community?
Incognito fraidy cat says:
[Mar 20th @ 10:26am]
629 members in that Past Event... Interesting if they read her name and decide to vote...
Chris "Never Illegally Campaigned" Ide says:
[Mar 20th @ 10:41am]
Uh-oh. Sounds like someone is going to get a fine.
mike says:
[Mar 20th @ 10:41am]
Sweet, that means my prediction might be right after all!
I don't know if the EC will rule that legal or not, I suspect they won't even consider it until they receive a formal complaint from someone.
My feeling is that sending such an email is basically part of her job as VP SL. I also think the DSU should be encouraging that kind of work. Candidates getting out the vote - whether it be in demographics likely to vote for them or not - is a good thing. I'd actually consider loosening the campaigning rules to permit campaigning during the elections period. I suspect many students went to the candidate information page and tried to go visit candidate websites, and were surprised when they could not. If 40% of voters aren't paying attention to the election until they login and cast a ballot, do we really want to force them to make a decision based on a 200 word profile and a 30 second Youtube clip?
As a historical note, it has always been my understanding that the reason they stopped campaigning before voting was because after they announced the results, there was no way to force the losers to cleanup their elections materials ("What are you doing to do? Disqualify me?"). In particular, they were concerned about the thousands of posters scattered over the campuses. Now that poster campaigning is tightly restricted... is there still a compelling reason to keep that rule in place?
Incognito fraidy cat says:
[Mar 20th @ 10:55am]
I don't know guys, if that's not illegal campaigning... I don't know what it.
It was sent at 12:03 am... This morning would of had the spike?
Incognito fraidy cat says:
[Mar 20th @ 10:56am]
I don't know what is. Not what it.
I do have a degree from Dal... I swear!
Yannick says:
[Mar 20th @ 11:23am]
the candidates received an email on wednesday afternoon stating that it was not illegal to promote voting as long as our name/position/platform/etc was not involved.
This is the examples we were given:
Good: "Hey! Don't forget to vote in the DSU elections @ www.dsu.ca!"
Bad "Yo! Vote Me for VP Awesome in the DSU elections!"
Hohn Jillman says:
[Mar 20th @ 11:38am]
I think she might be able to make a good case that the email is within elections rules. They did tell us, after all, that
"As long as your name/position/platform/etc is not involved, your facebook
status, msn names, etc can be used to promote voting. You ARE permitted to
email your friends/facebook list and ask them to vote during this election."
I'm somewhat confused as to how you can send off an email/facebook message without revealing your name, and so I've avoided doing it, but perhaps name dropping is allowed in those contexts.
I think the real issue is the no campaigning rule. Being able to hit the pavement and motivate students
would not only increase the total voter turnout, but would also level the name recognition playing field for those candidates that might not have access to mailing lists of 629 Dalhousie students.
Just a few thoughts for next year. The elections staff has done a wonderful job, especially considering that this is a election without an extremely controversial referendum issue at play.
Lisa B. says:
[Mar 21st @ 01:11am]
After seeing the final turnout tonight, I was discussing with someone the possibility of changing the elections regulation to allow for campaigning during the election period. I'd absolutely be open to that idea. As was mentioned, a lot of people don't know the election is happening until voting has commenced, and it is worrying that people might only base their vote on the bios and videos prepared at the beginning of the campaign (before a lot of candidates have a clue as to what exactly they're doing), and the ever popular photos, which surely result in a few "(s)he's hot" votes. Also, as the online presence of candidates has increased and (arguably) improved over the past couple of years, it makes little sense to deprive those less aware of the election from the get-go of the chance to familiarize themselves with the details of candidate platforms.
Though I wouldn't consider it mandatory, candidates do and should play a role in getting the vote out. However, the fear of a post-campaigning fine can affect their willingness to spread the word. Osmond was sporting this year's bright yellow "Vote Squad" t-shirt this morning and another candidate expressed concern over where the line is drawn on post-campaigning. I see the concern ("Kris is telling people to vote and they might recognize him when they go to the website."), but consider this: in a "real" election, candidates often provide voters with transportation to the polls (some will even provide Tim Bits for the drive). You can be damn sure those voters know who's driving them.
I absolutely agree that nobody on the EC can be blamed for the drop in turnout. From what I've been hearing, candidates didn't do many classroom talks this year [including Larkin who did about 8 billion last year and Tipping (on behalf of the HSA referendum) who microfocused the campaign toward residences]. The only class talk I got at the law school was the EC when I dragged them into my Constitutional Law class.
There are multiple factors at play in voter turnout, including the visibility of the DSU during the year leading up to the election. I hope that this year's marked drop in turnout, whatever the reason for it, will encourage those with the means, particularly the exec, Council, and campus media, to keep students aware and engaged so that people will (a) know the election is coming and (b) want to participate in said election even if the year is devoid of any major controversy.
Gregory Debogorski says:
[Mar 22nd @ 02:35pm]
If students are not further engaged in the decisions and activities of the Union, what makes them care when elections season comes about?
I mean, if they do not care about what the DSU does in the first place, why or what will make them care who is running it?
Does anyone have an answer for that?
|
