yes they do change during the day. However, the boxes at each station which contain the ballots do not change during the day. So, it'd be impossible to know which votes were actually 'tainted.' The only safe thing to do in this case would be to disqualify the whole box, unfortunately. Not to worry though as it thankfully would not change the results in the end... and I think you can kind of extrapolate what the results might have been anyways

I also think it's appropriate for me to say:

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOYEAAA AAAAAAAAAAA!!!!

on top of these fabulous results, I'm going to see HSM3. This is the best day ever. ahahahaha

Originally Posted by temara.brown

Now to those who might have heard the message that the SRA was running a dirty campaign, you can now safely accept it as a completely false. We were not the ones who were disqualified nor were close for that matter.

... alright, just a few questions about that...

so we're trusting that the SRA ran a good campaign based on the fact that they were not disqualified, even though they could have been given some fines, just not enough for a disqualification, we don't know since the results are not public yet. also, the EC is a part of the SRA, so it's a bit hard to immediately and blindly trust them. and we don't even know why the other side was disqualified, just that they apparently broke a number of rules. we don't know which ones, how badly, or really anything...

and... were you on the EC? if so, you could know how close the SRA was to being disqualified, but then you should not have been campaigning for either side. if you weren't, how could you possibly know how close the SRA was to being disqualified, since the EC results and minutes are still unreleased?

*edit* ok, so i see that it is the campaign team's choice to release the fines and reasons. so it really isn't up to the EC, sorry to suggest that. but maybe it should be? in a case where the SRA takes up a position, the other position is disqualified behind closed doors... it's not nearly transparent enough for my liking.

There are more opinions on this whole issue posted on the sil. Check them out:

http://thesil.ca/?p=944#comment-998

I've posted my response to the one I just linked to...

"also, the EC is a part of the SRA"... Not true. The EC is a service under the MSU, yes. But it is not run by the SRA and does an amazing job to be completely unbiased.

The SRA did have some fines but they are trivial compared to what the other side has and we are appealing the ones we have because they are that way. For example, the one fine we got was for having a poster put up on MUSC admin's desk. But, we now have written testimony from the people who work there saying that a staff member did it, not a campaign member. And the staff wanted the "no" poster there.
Another example is the article that was posted on the president's page of last week's sil. It is a violation to have the MSU's logo or any other service's logo on any campaign material. On the president's page, the logo is at the very top of it. However, that whole page is a paid advertisement. The SRA has paid for the article that was in there and it was intended to be separate.

Now for the other side? Well, there were many posters that were put up which were not approved by the elections committee, there were posters in stair wells (a fire hazard which we all now know is REALLY not a good thing), posters on dry-wall (against the policy as it could cause damage), packaging tape used instead of masking tape to keep stuff stuck to the wall..... but the posters are the least of it.

There were also many efforts to slander the MSU with those white sheets of information that claimed we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on our 'rich secretaries' among other random and false claims. These flyers were being handed out to students in the student center and all around campus. I've also had friends tell me that they happened to observe them throwing a pile of them over the balcony... and this all seems very logical for a company who would need to bid for the contract from the MSU if this thing did pass, right? Anyways, the flyers were clearly campaign material (they said, "send your corrupt student government a strong MSG, vote yes") which were obviously not approved. I found these things lying all over campus and you're not supposed to leave campaign material unattended like that... and the whole thing was just absolutely ridiculous.

You might also have seen those little business cards being handed out... also which were all over littering the campus. That's bad in so many ways.. for me, the worst is the littering but they could have been charged for soliciting on student property (not cool) and also with leaving campaign material unattended).

And for threatening? There was something in the Sil that quoted a yes campaign member saying how the SRA were a mean, threatening bunch who would stop at nothing to sway students into a no vote. Although, I believe I heard claims that their behaviour around polls was less than disgraceful.

And they copied my poster design! That's just not cool and uber lame!!!!! BOOO

All of what I have said about the other committee is purely from what I have observed and is what I have interpretted from the rules. I cannot completely say what exactly got them their fines and how much each one was. What I can say is that if they did not get disqualified after this referendum, I would be amazed.

I also find it funny how there were people campaigning who were not even students, which means they were not registered campaign members (my guess is they were a part of the company). However, I do not know what would have happened with that...

AND I ran into a student in the MSU office who was quite outraged about the whole slander campaign. She was livid that she saw members of the 'yes' campaign strategically taking down 'no's posters... which makes me mad because I would have to go and put them back up.

.. AND I BET THEY NEVER DONATED THEM BACK TO MACGREEN FOR THEIR NOTEBOOK CAMPAIGN after they ripped them all down!!! Lame.

I am on the "no" campaign team and so I know how much our fees came to and what they were for. And after knowing this, I can only imagine what they other team would have gotten for what they had done. And no, we were not even close to getting DQ'd (ice cream!!!). And, we're going to appeal the few fines that we did get because there just isn't enough grounds to actually use it as a fine. Of the four that we have, the one I think is least likely to get turned over is the one about the president's page. I've told you why that shouldn't count so I'm sure you can imagine the rest.

PS check out their notebooks.. it's such a cool idea!

honestly, thank you

i hadn't actually seen any of those things, this was a crazy week and i barely went into musc. all i wanted was reasons, and that's exactly what you gave me. you're the best temara.

and sorry about misrepresenting the EC, i was under the impression they were under the SRA. silly internet misinformation...

Originally Posted by stevennevets

... silly internet misinformation...

Haha... It's ironic that you said this after so many people have been debating why the EC banned online campaigning in the first place and you said it perfectly!

Sorry, I am a huge fan of irony

Awww yay!! Thanks stevennevets! and Mavis... HUGE LOL!!! AHAHAHAH

Hey Guys,

Just a quick thing: the EC's meeting minutes and all fines and descriptions will be released following the appeals period. This was decided to be done to encourage transparency. Please visit http://www.msumcmaster.ca/servicesan...B2 11AB543366 for more information.

Cheers,
John

YAAAAAAAaY!!!!

Originally Posted by temara.brown

"also, the EC is a part of the SRA"... Not true. The EC is a service under the MSU, yes. But it is not run by the SRA and does an amazing job to be completely unbiased.

The EC is part of the SRA. It is a committee of the SRA designed to operate at arms length. It files reports to the SRA and the majority of the committee are SRA members.

Yes, it is designed to operate independently of the SRA, but nobody can be on the Election Committee without being appointed to it by the SRA.

In short, the EC is part of SRA but designed to be independent of it at the same time.

This is the reason for the existance of the Electoral Appeal Board. Appeals of EB decisions are brought to this body instead of the SRA. However, even the EAB is not completely independent of the SRA in theory. 2 of the 3 seats on the EAB are SRA appointments, the other seat is the University Secretary.

The SRA chooses its speaker who sits on the EAB and approves the recommendation of the Elections Committee for the third member. Thankfully, the third person is faculty at the university and extremely fair-minded.

Originally Posted by McIntyre

Hey Guys,

Just a quick thing: the EC's meeting minutes and all fines and descriptions will be released following the appeals period. This was decided to be done to encourage transparency. Please visit http://www.msumcmaster.ca/servicesan...B2 11AB543366 for more information.

Cheers,
John

This is a good start. It would be nice if the Elections Committee returned to its previous operating method of holding meetings open to the public in the first place. This "closed session" business that SRA members and the elections committee have engaged in during the past four years has tainted the process greatly.

All charges should be heard in public and any falsehoods would face the disinfectant of public light.

Prior to 2004, the Elections Committee met in the open. Heard evidence in the open, and delivered its rulings in the open. The only time it went behind closed doors was to deliberate. Much like a real court, with the jury going into a room to deliberate.

Ballots counts should also be held in the open.

If I were to take what you're saying about the EC being a part of the SRA, I could say the same thing about pretty much all of the services under the MSU. All services report to us at one point in time and many of them have SRA members working with them in one form or another. However, I do not see this as classifying it as being administered by the SRA at all.. it's just not the case.

The SRA is the governing body and we have a vested interest the operations of the MSU. It is out of the office of the CRO and DRO that the elections service operates. The committee members are appointed by the SRA, yes. But they are elected under the premise that they will uphold the purpose and values of the Elections Service. If the CRO and DRO or any other coordinator does not feel like this member is completing the task in this manner, they can be removed from the committee upon their discretion.
Your argument could also be applied to TAC, teaching awards. It has a lot of SRA members sitting on it, including myself. All of the members are elected by the SRA. However, as with the EC, it's not the case with the coordinator. These are positions hired by MSU admin and these are the people who run these services.

Everything under the MSU umbrella will interact with the SRA on some level or another but it is not administered by. Thanks for that extra credit but it's just too kind.

As for transparency of the EC, I believe what they are doing is the most fair approach. And, in the end, everything is going to be released. As for when the EC "heard evidence in the open, and delivered its rulings in the open," I'd think that'd just leave a lot of unnecessary room for people's emotions to go crazy. Anytime any student needs to submit a complaint with the current system, they have the option to do it in private and remain anonymous. Candidates/campaign sides then are able to hear out these complaints and appeal them if need be in a professional setting.

The SRA represents the students and has the right to ensure that all students have insight and a say in whatever their student union is doing.

Originally Posted by temara.brown

If I were to take what you're saying about the EC being a part of the SRA, I could say the same thing about pretty much all of the services under the MSU. All services report to us at one point in time and many of them have SRA members working with them in one form or another. However, I do not see this as classifying it as being administered by the SRA at all.. it's just not the case.

The point is that the Elections Committee is a committee of the SRA.

You and I are well aware that in previous years, candidates have made sure their friends on the SRA were on the committee.

As for transparency of the EC, I believe what they are doing is the most fair approach. And, in the end, everything is going to be released. As for when the EC "heard evidence in the open, and delivered its rulings in the open," I'd think that'd just leave a lot of unnecessary room for people's emotions to go crazy. Anytime any student needs to submit a complaint with the current system, they have the option to do it in private and remain anonymous. Candidates/campaign sides then are able to hear out these complaints and appeal them if need be in a professional setting.

Why does the MSU often assume that students are unable to act in a mature manner as the adults they are?

Why make students wait for transparency? What says the minutes will not be changed to reflect the reality that the EC wishes to project? All these questions can be avoided by being transparent from the start.