Comments:

---

Upset About Prez says:
[Mar 21st @ 03:17am]

It's a shame Tara didn't take it. I guess politicking and weighing fines against fair play wins in the end...

Look forward to a very ineffective and inefficient DSU...more so than usual.

---

Gregory Debogorski AKA Gregorian says:
[Mar 21st @ 12:37pm]

I beat Smit's 5% prediction. Hahaha!

The DSU isn't so screwed. Atleast Snow got in. That means that there will be atleast one decent memeber on council.

I will have to try and heckle Larkin like I did Tipping last year.
And Osmond, I am riding your a** at council all year for your vindictive spite.

---

Mario says:
[Mar 21st @ 01:42pm]

In Debogorski we trust!

---

Anonymous DSUer says:
[Mar 21st @ 02:02pm]

Vindictive spite, Greg? Like calling you out on shockingly stupid things you said on the Internet? That was a valid question, and one that I think needed to be asked.

Actually, your threat to "ride your a**" at council sounds pretty spiteful and vindictive. That's some fine hypocrisy there, Greg.

How about instead of heckling or 'riding people's a**es' you do something constructive? Maybe then people would take you seriously (if you hadn't figured it out already, nobody does right now).

---

BongDong says:
[Mar 21st @ 02:57pm]

When are the full results going to be released - i.e. total counts for each candidate, spoiled ballot numbers etc.?

---

NoneSubmitted says:
[Mar 21st @ 05:26pm]


I'm sure you may like to "ride his ass". I don't think Kris goes for me though.

---

John Packman says:
[Mar 21st @ 06:17pm]

You can see all the results at The Gazette website. And even though you can't see it in our statistics, Courtney Larkin won by 24 votes and Senate Andrew Christofi lost by 3 votes.

Talk about fucking close.

John

---

What Do You Expect? says:
[Mar 21st @ 08:28pm]

The candidates are all interchangeable (well, with a few notably useless exceptions) ... nobody stood out as exceptional. Is it any wonder voters split?

---

Gregory Debogorski says:
[Mar 22nd @ 02:27pm]

My share of voter turnout increased 2% from last year.
The total voter turnout speaks to everything I said during the elections.

It really matters if students take me seriously; they obviously take the Union no more seriously. I shall try and change this in the future; this is in regards to both the Union and my own platform.
This was the first year I developed a platform; it and my knowledge of the Union needs a lot of work.
I agree the, the comments were a little spiteful. I apologise for the tone, but not the anger.
The "insiders" had an obvious play in this election. And my anger and frustration comes not from losing this year's election, but from having to personally tell the people who did vote for me that I lost. The disappointment in their eyes is brutal. It is what I get for not being prepared. If anything, perhaps some issues were brought to the forefront; perhaps Larkin will do better as president than Tipping, or as she did as VP of student life.
I will uphold my original promise; I will be back next year.
For the Union!

---

Sarah says:
[Mar 22nd @ 03:35pm]

For the sake of transparency, I have posted all of the statistics on the DSU Elections website.

---

Not the CRO says:
[Mar 23rd @ 05:10pm]

With all due respect to the author of this site and those in charge of the DSU electoral process, I really think the integrity of the election has been compromised in part by the sort of discussion that has taken place on this blog.

Specifically, I am a bit uncomfortable with the realtime analysis of voter turnout as it has been presented here. It is my understanding that Mr. Smit runs and administers the ivoteonline software and because of this has privileged access to certain data that would be unavailable elsewhere.
On this basis, I would suggest it behooves both Mr. Smit and the DSU to maintain the highest level of integrity vis-a-vis the election data. In that respect, I think that the posting of the actual rate of voter turnout and the author's accompanying analysis are wholly inappropriate.

This sort of thing leads to rumours and questions about the integrity of the other data Mr. Smit or the DROs/CROs would seemingly have access to. I don't wish to cast aspersions on anyone's character but the electoral process is much like justice - in order for electoral legitimacy to take hold, integrity must be done and must be seen to be done.

In recent days, I have heard rumours that those administering the election adjusted policies and sent out repeated voting reminders on the basis of turnout data made available on this site. While voter turnout is a crucial issue confronting any student union, its important to recognize its value as a measure of the DSU's ability to capture the attention/imagination of its constituents. Whether you vote, spoil, choose not to vote, or simply forget - your choice of action or absence of action contribute to the democratic will expressed by the electorate. While the rumoured conduct is not akin to stuffing ballot boxes in the name of a particular candidate, it does distort the the will of the people.

Without taking things too seriously, I would also suggest that the organizing of friendly betting pools is also the sort of activity that tends to undermine the recent DSU elections. I hate to spoil the fun - and it is fun to read, comment, and analyze - but it really does seem out of place that those who would have the best access to election data would risk compromising the perceived truth of that data by attempting to accurately predict the election results.

Online voting (or any mechanized black box that obscures balloting) will always have its challenges in terms of transparency. The voter will never be able to watch their "ballot" enter the box, so to speak. For that reason, those who would administer such software have a duty to conduct themselves to the highest possible standard. I respect Mr. Smit and the attention his work has brought to Student politics at Dal, but I think we need to reconsider how we approach online voting.

---

mike says:
[Mar 23rd @ 07:19pm]

I don't generally respond to anonymous rumour monging. People with legitimate complaints go through legitimate channels. However, on the off-chance more than a single person feels this way, I will respond publicly. The record should be set straight. This is, however, the furthest extent to which I will engage with anonymous smear campaigns.

In summary, I read a lot of vague statements, unsupported rumours, and assertive statements that don't follow from the offered rumours - even if they were true, which they aren't. Let's go point-by-point.

"I really think the integrity of the election has been compromised"

This is a serious accusation, and unfortunately not one supported by the remainder of the comment. I saw no grounds to challenge the integrity of the election, and certainly no case is made to explain how knowing voter turnout affects the results. I will happily defend the integrity of this election.

"It is my understanding that Mr. Smit runs and administers the ivoteonline software."

This is correct, I have been running the online portion of DSU elections for 7 years. I also run elections for St Francis Xavier, St Mary's University, and the Law Student Society.

"and because of this has privileged access to certain data that would be unavailable elsewhere."

This is incorrect. I do not access any data that is not available to the Elections Committee. I also have a signed confidentiality agreement with the Union that protects confidential information, and I have never violated this agreement.

"to maintain the highest level of integrity vis-a-vis the election data."

I would assert that we do, and since you've offered no evidence to the contrary...

"[posting of the actual rate of voter turnout] leads to rumours and questions about the integrity of the other data Mr. Smit or the DROs/CROs would seemingly have access to."

This is the first I have heard of such rumours and questions. In fact, I still have no idea what these rumours and questions would be.

I have never, and will never, use(d) any information that is not public on this site. The CRO and Elections Committee have always been assured of that. In fact, I work extraordinarily hard to distinguish my role with the committee and my role with this site. I am happy to offer evidence of this.

"I don't wish to cast aspersions on anyone's character"

There's been no evidence of this so far.

"in order for electoral legitimacy to take hold, integrity must be done and must be seen to be done. "

Again, still not seeing how the elections lack legitimacy, or for that matter how I lack integrity.

"In recent days, I have heard rumours that those administering the election adjusted policies and sent out repeated voting reminders on the basis of turnout data made available on this site."

Heard, or invented? Those administering the elections have, and have always had, complete access to real-time voter turnout. I have no idea why they would get that information from MikeSmit.com. Voter turnout has also always been public information, all the way from back when we used pen and paper to keep track of voting. I also fail to see the problem with redoubling marketing efforts based on feedback. This has been done every year for the past decade, and probably for long before that, including when we used paper ballots. I have never heard complaints, and can think of no basis for complaints.

I am also aware of no policy adjustments made during this election; however, I am not intimately familiar with everything the Elections Committee does. I suggest you take this up with them.

"While the rumoured conduct is not akin to stuffing ballot boxes in the name of a particular candidate, it does distort the the will of the people."

You'll have to draw a line for me from "getting people to vote" to "distorting the will of people". You'll also want to tell me who is rumouring this conduct, as I would be happy to reassure them myself. Even contrasting it to ballot box stuffing is so ludicrous it's not even insulting.

"the organizing of friendly betting pools is also the sort of activity that tends to undermine the recent DSU elections."

... really? I participate in betting pools for all levels of government, and this has never come up before.

"those who would have the best access to election data would risk compromising the perceived truth of that data"

The betting pool was complete in its entirety before there WAS any elections data.

I have no idea why the perceived truth of the elections data would be compromised by a betting pool that concluded before elections began, nor have I heard this in the four years I have been involved with DSU elections betting pools.

"For that reason, those who would administer such software have a duty to conduct themselves to the highest possible standard."

And so we do. And have, for 7 years. To imply otherwise, anonymously, is both criminal and cowardly.

"I respect Mr. Smit and the attention his work has brought to Student politics at Dal"

... again, there's been no evidence of this so far.

"but I think we need to reconsider how we approach online voting."

That's a vague generality. I would encourage you to bring your suggestions up in an appropriate forum - online voting has changed to meet the needs of the DSU over the past decade, and every comment and suggestion is considered.

---

One desperate Chechen says:
[Mar 23rd @ 07:56pm]

Online voting, secure? The only people who think online voting is secure are the makers and the politicians the makers purchased.

An AK47 is the only vote that counts.

---

Another Anonymous Coward says:
[Mar 23rd @ 08:58pm]

Questioning Mike's integrity just because you don't like his coverage or the results of the election is cheap. Grow up.

---

The other other Anon says:
[Mar 23rd @ 09:29pm]

The internet is for freedom, I'll do whatever I damn well please on it.

Be that ruining pages on Wikipedia about the DSU or learn how to make Hyper-Jenkem.

---

Anonymous Coward says:
[Mar 23rd @ 09:48pm]

Mike likes to play the satirical asshole on this site, but I probably knew him before you, and he has great personal integrity.

---

Still Not the CRO says:
[Mar 23rd @ 09:58pm]

Questioning how data has been handled and the conduct of recent elections is hardly criminal or cowardly. As well, if you don't like or appreciate anonymous comments, it is within your power to disallow them.

I will add that I didn't accuse you of anything nor impugn your integrity. In fact, I went to great lengths to ensure I didn't.

My reasons for posting anonymously are my own. I am not a candidate nor associated with any campaign. Thank you.

My criticism is that the integrity of election procedures are partly undermined by the online discussion and distribution of voter turnout data that has taken place here. Note the language. I did not say: "seriously undermined", "total sham", or "illegitimate." My criticism is meant to be modest.

The problem here is one of perception and optics. If you are going to administer the information services that support an election, I offer that you should not also be commenting on data trends or organizing betting pools. Especially publicly. As a voter, I find it unseemly. I would liken your position to that of an independent auditor or judge. You are in an implicit position of trust.

Whether or not anything nefarious is going on is irrelevant for the purpose of the discussion I'm trying to have. The fact is, I'm sure you don't have any bias and your record speaks for itself. Finally, I'll state that your personal word is good enough for me personally. As I said earlier, I have no reason to cast aspersions on you or anyone else. But I can ask the question - your defensive response would suggest I'm not welcome to do so here. That would be a shame, but if you would rather I come up with a witty pun on VAJ/Internal and leave you be - I can deliver on cue.

As I said in my earlier post, I'm talking exclusively about the appearance of integrity. The process has to be airtight.

Is it?

As a voter, how do I know beyond what you assert, that it is?

Is the above off limits? Feel free to delete and disregard.

---

mike says:
[Mar 23rd @ 10:35pm]

I did not intend to sound defensive; I apologize if I did. My intent was only to respond to questions and rumours with facts. Online communication is really a terrible forum. :)

I welcome debate and discussion, but not anonymously and completely in the wrong forum. Anonymously publishing rumours and implying they are fact was the source of my objections, and I felt your original comment did that.

Thank you for clarifying your motives and opinions. Whether you intended to or not, your comment did seem to me and to others to be implying more than you intended.

I am still confused about how *public* voter turnout figures impact the integrity of the election, even at a preception level, but I don't want to get into the debate here.

In keeping with the separation I try to impose between this site and my role with the committee, I would ask that you keep questions about my role with the committee to the proper forums, and not here. Also feel free to email me personally, if all you want is a discussion.

---

Gregory Debogorski says:
[Mar 23rd @ 11:07pm]

I thought the "non-cro" comment had a place and a point.
The appearance of the DSU is paramount to fixing apathy.
If this person is hearing talk, of the sort he mentioned, it needs to be addressed.
Mike Smit is likely the man for the job in my opinion. I can only hope he will take this seriously and not sluff it off.
But who am I.

---

Raughing Out Roud says:
[Mar 24th @ 12:00am]

The man for what job? What are you talking about? Do you even listen to yourself? Yourselves?

---

John Hillman says:
[Mar 24th @ 01:35am]

So it was Mike Smit's nefarious online scheming that caused me to lose by 89% of the popular vote! I knew something had to be off...every one of the 233 friends I talked to afterwards said they voted for me!

It was a clever ploy predicting that I would get 20% of the vote in your betting pool...almost as genius as incorrectly guessing the race for VP Student Life, utterly blowing your senate predictions, and overestimating the total voter turnout by some eight hundred students. Well played sir...you almost managed to fool me.

Regardless of whether or not I'm right, it is now officially a rumor. People are talking Mr. Smit!

---

Jen Bond says:
[Mar 24th @ 02:18pm]

Discussing integrity while hiding behind an anonymous alias? Excuse me if I don't fall over myself to give credence to your concerns.

As Mike has said, there are more appropriate channels for this. If you actually have legitimate concerns, as opposed to unfounded speculations, I suggest you use them.

---

coward for a reason says:
[Mar 25th @ 01:16am]

hey, if I was coming out with a load of vague unsubstantiated crap, based on crap rumours no one else has heard, I'd do it anonymously.

---

Anonymous NSPIRGer says:
[Mar 25th @ 10:21am]

Hey, I heard Mike likes to torture poor defenseless dairy animals.

MILK IS MURDER MIKE.

MILK IS MURDER.

---