I realized that there was something very wrong going on with the first-year representative elections when I clicked on the online ballot out of curiosity.
Instead of a ranking system, you only have the option to pick one candidate out of three possible candidates. When I saw this, I remembered last year's Senate discussion successfully instituting instant runoff voting, so I went back and re-examined the Senate Executive Board's emails about this election.
It turns out there are THREE irregularities with the first-year elections, all of which could alter the outcome of the election.
Because they currently have no representation on Senate, it is our responsibility to represent the interests of first-year students. Furthermore, it is in all of our interests to make sure that EVERY Senate election is run fairly, according to the rules we all agreed upon as a community.
Below are the relevant sections of the Student Senate Constitution followed by my analysis:
ARTICLE VII. ELECTIONS, Section 1. Jurisdiction.
Specific guidelines for Student Senate elections shall be made publicly available at least one week before candidate applications are made available.
No election guidelines were ever made public. This means the usual limits on campaigning and campaign spending were never discussed or approved.
ARTICLE VII. ELECTIONS, Section 3. Applications.
c.There shall be a be a five day minimum for candidates of the elected positions to submit their application to run for an elected position.
The real application period was shorter: Buddy Bennett announced the first-year election along with its applications on Monday, Sep 14, 2009 at 11:12 AM. The email stated that "Applications are due by this Thursday, September 17th," for a total of three days.
ARTICLE VII. ELECTIONS, Section 5. Election Guidelines.
a. Votes must be cast by secret ballot conducted according to the following directives:
i. Voters rank candidates in order of preference. Ballots shall instruct voters to rank their preferences, with "1" indicating their first choice. Voters may rank as many or as few candidates as they wish, with lower rankings never counting against higher rankings.c. Elections must adhere to the principles of instant runoff voting.
The online ballot being used does not adhere to the principles of instant runoff voting, which centers on a ranking mechanism that allows more expression of choice than other systems. Because there are three candidates for this position, this deviance from the constitution could alter the outcome of the election.
To help understand why "IRV" is important, take a look at the 2000 US Presidential election: if the principles of instant runoff voting were followed, votes for Ralph Nader would not have detracted from votes for the other two candidates: Votes would have transferred from 3rd place Nader to 2nd place Gore, pushing him over Bush. The outcome of that election would have been different.
Here's a screenshot of the online ballot:
[/caption]
In addition to being materially important to THIS election, it is crucial that we set a good precedent of following the constitution in running our Senate elections. It isn't fair to anyone if we run one election one way, and run the next election a different way under the same constitution.
I emailed the members of Executive Board and asked them to either redo the election, or explain why the arguments below are wrong. Secretary Buddy Bennett called me to discuss the problems and although we had a pleasant conversation, he did not agree to redo the elections nor did he explain why my assertions aren't right. Later, the Executive Board sent out another student-talk email asking first-years to vote.
Please encourage your Student Senate representatives to redo this election.
I realized that there was something very wrong going on with the first-year representative elections when I clicked on the online ballot out of curiosity.
Instead of a ranking system, you only have the option to pick one candidate out of three possible candidates. When I saw this, I remembered last year's Senate discussion successfully instituting instant runoff voting, so I went back and re-examined the Senate Executive Board's emails about this election.
It turns out there are THREE irregularities with the first-year elections, all of which could alter the outcome of the election.
Because they currently have no representation on Senate, it is our responsibility to represent the interests of first-year students. Furthermore, it is in all of our interests to make sure that EVERY Senate election is run fairly, according to the rules we all agreed upon as a community.
Below are the relevant sections of the Student Senate Constitution followed by my analysis:
ARTICLE VII. ELECTIONS, Section 1. Jurisdiction.
Specific guidelines for Student Senate elections shall be made publicly available at least one week before candidate applications are made available.
No election guidelines were ever made public. This means the usual limits on campaigning and campaign spending were never discussed or approved.
ARTICLE VII. ELECTIONS, Section 3. Applications.
c.There shall be a be a five day minimum for candidates of the elected positions to submit their application to run for an elected position.
The real application period was shorter: Buddy Bennett announced the first-year election along with its applications on Monday, Sep 14, 2009 at 11:12 AM. The email stated that "Applications are due by this Thursday, September 17th," for a total of three days.
ARTICLE VII. ELECTIONS, Section 5. Election Guidelines.
a. Votes must be cast by secret ballot conducted according to the following directives:
i. Voters rank candidates in order of preference. Ballots shall instruct voters to rank their preferences, with "1" indicating their first choice. Voters may rank as many or as few candidates as they wish, with lower rankings never counting against higher rankings.c. Elections must adhere to the principles of instant runoff voting.
The online ballot being used does not adhere to the principles of instant runoff voting, which centers on a ranking mechanism that allows more expression of choice than other systems. Because there are three candidates for this position, this deviance from the constitution could alter the outcome of the election.
To help understand why "IRV" is important, take a look at the 2000 US Presidential election: if the principles of instant runoff voting were followed, votes for Ralph Nader would not have detracted from votes for the other two candidates: Votes would have transferred from 3rd place Nader to 2nd place Gore, pushing him over Bush. The outcome of that election would have been different.
Here's a screenshot of the online ballot:
[/caption]
In addition to being materially important to THIS election, it is crucial that we set a good precedent of following the constitution in running our Senate elections. It isn't fair to anyone if we run one election one way, and run the next election a different way under the same constitution.
I emailed the members of Executive Board and asked them to either redo the election, or explain why the arguments below are wrong. Secretary Buddy Bennett called me to discuss the problems and although we had a pleasant conversation, he did not agree to redo the elections nor did he explain why my assertions aren't right. Later, the Executive Board sent out another student-talk email asking first-years to vote.
Please encourage your Student Senate representatives to redo this election.
Related posts:
- New Senate 1st-Year Rep: Arthur Levine Congratulations to the newest elected member of Student Senate, Arthur Levine '13! Arthur squeaked out a 50.72% majority against Jon Rice '13 and Hallory Sindelar '13....
- First-Year Rep Admits Wrongdoing, Resigns This morning First-Year Representative Arthur Levine '13 sent the following email to student-talk, announcing his resignation from his position. You may remember September's botched election and...
- Election Update: Exec Board Calls a Redo! From Senate Vice Chair Paul Waters-Smith at 10:20 pm tonight: Regarding First-Year Elections Pitzer Student Body: Resulting from a miscommunication with the Information Technology Department, the...
- SoCal and bigger questions: Looking at 1st– Year Seminars First-year seminars have been on my mind since my own first-year seminar in Fall 2006. Even then, it was apparent that the quality of your class...
- Former First-year Rep Addresses Summit From Michael Hernandez-Henderson at 10:29 am on September 22 [my emphasis supplied]: Dear pitzer Community, I was also a part of the Budgetary Committee last year...
i’m glad one person knows what they are doing… too bad it isnt any of the exec board members
As a first-year candidate myself, I sent an email to the exec board questioning these elections and voicing my concerns.
I have no formal statement to make at this time regarding the election.
However, I am confident that even with a new election, my grassroots campaign is strong enough to come out on top.
After I get a response from the exec board, I will write an official statement on the state of the elections. For now, let’s ride it out.
Get on that formal statement the New York Times has a reporter up waiting for it.
Really no need to attack me for trying to be professional.