The Count

[Freaker]

I guess results will keep coming in on the twitter feed, but is there any particular order in which the positions will be counted? At what time are results for the sabbatical posts expected? 'twill be an exciting evening!

[Fawksie]

STAR are also covering the count all night, and posting results on the website.

</plug>

[Hennessy]

" We broadcast 24/7, with live programming from 4PM till 1AM every night."

[Fawksie]

That statement is perfectly accurate. There's a sustaining service outwith live hours.

[Andrew W]

Does anyone know when we are likely to get the rest of the results? 'Some other time' is just not good enough for those of us who put so much effort and time into campaigning.

I take it we'll be seeing another new ballot method next year?

[Fawksie]

What form did the ballots take this year then? I notice a reference to chopping up books on the Twitter feed, what's that about?

[orudge]

Instead of handing out lots of sheets, the ballot papers were conveniently organised into little booklets.

[Fawksie]

Aha. Easier to vote and harder to count...

[orudge]

Well, I'd have thought they'd have been easier to count, once the ripping up was done, since at least then the pages would be in a predictable order, and not all just stuffed into a box in whatever order. On that note, this must be the first election where I voted in the middle of the afternoon and the ballot boxes weren't stuffed to the brim.

I still think it would be worth looking into e-voting in the future, personally, but that's another topic.

[What?]

I think the issue with e-voting is apathy...apparently (claimed Keenan at hecklings) Glasgow had e-voting, an electorate of 30,000 and a turnout of 800. A reasonable argument is that you can't avoid the polling stations - almost every student will have walked past the union, library or physics yesterday.

[Jono]

Well, I'd have thought they'd have been easier to count, once the ripping up was done, since at least then the pages would be in a predictable order, and not all just stuffed into a box in whatever order. On that note, this must be the first election where I voted in the middle of the afternoon and the ballot boxes weren't stuffed to the brim.

I still think it would be worth looking into e-voting in the future, personally, but that's another topic.

Yeah, the ballot books turned out to be a bit of a mixed-blessing. It took us about two hours to sort the 34,000 individual ballot papers. Consequently, we weren't able to start counting until very late. Coupled with the DoSDA recount, we took rather a long time.

[James Shield]

Does anyone know when we are likely to get the rest of the results? 'Some other time' is just not good enough for those of us who put so much effort and time into campaigning.

We're starting the count again at 10am tomorrow morning. With the largest number of candidates and voters we've ever had, it's not surprising that this is going to take a while.

I take it we'll be seeing another new ballot method next year?

If we use paper ballots again then I imagine we'll use the new system we created for this election again, with a few minor changes. It is by far the best way for people to vote by paper - it costs less to print, takes up less space in the ballot box and makes voting much easier. I'm perfectly happy to spend longer counting the votes in exchange for those benefits.

On that note, this must be the first election where I voted in the middle of the afternoon and the ballot boxes weren't stuffed to the brim.

That might have something to do with the fact that I spent most of the afternoon bombing around town in the Union van, collecting ballot boxes and delivering extra papers. But as I said, the ballot papers this year are a much more efficient use of space and paper than the old ones were.

I still think it would be worth looking into e-voting in the future, personally, but that's another topic.

Me too. Our ideal system would be one that is electronic but not online, so that voters still have to go to polling stations and we preserve the buzz of election day with campaigning etc. Of course, this could be opened up to online voting for students on a year abroad programme. Although these students could still vote this year, it meant that I had to fill out the papers by hand on their behalf yesterday evening, using instructions sent by email.

[Al]

Let's face it, the problem that causes delays in the counting is not the number of ballots cast - there were elections years ago where a greater proportion of students voted than have voted in recent "record turnout" elections - but RON. It's bad enough that it has drifted so far from its original purpose as to be scarcely believed, but the way that people vote to RON and then go on to vote for candidates is just stupid. A vote to RON is essentially a vote against ALL candidates. How can someone vote to RON and then vote for a candidate? It's effectively saying that "I don't wonder want anyone of these people to win but if I had to pick someone then I pick this person". Madness. If you insist in keeping RON then it should be separate from the candidates. Either a voter votes to RON or they don't. They can't have it both ways. If a voter can put a number to show second/third/fourth preference by a real candidate after putting RON first then they surely can decide which candidate should have their first preference vote and so on. I believe I said the same thing after last year's election having been reminded - when I helped at the count - of the uselessness and pointlessness of RON. Nobody listened then. I don't expect anyone will listen now.

[mispy]

I thought it was very well organised and run. My only (and very minor) complaint is that the booklets were wider than the slot in the ballot box (at least in the library) and so took a while to shove in causing a bit of a queue.

[Daniel]

Let's face it, the problem that causes delays in the counting is not the number of ballots cast - there were elections years ago where a greater proportion of students voted than have voted in recent "record turnout" elections - but RON. It's bad enough that it has drifted so far from its original purpose as to be scarcely believed, but the way that people vote to RON and then go on to vote for candidates is just stupid. A vote to RON is essentially a vote against ALL candidates. How can someone vote to RON and then vote for a candidate? It's effectively saying that "I don't wonder want anyone of these people to win but if I had to pick someone then I pick this person". Madness. If you insist in keeping RON then it should be separate from the candidates. Either a voter votes to RON or they don't. They can't have it both ways. If a voter can put a number to show second/third/fourth preference by a real candidate after putting RON first then they surely can decide which candidate should have their first preference vote and so on. I believe I said the same thing after last year's election having been reminded - when I helped at the count - of the uselessness and pointlessness of RON. Nobody listened then. I don't expect anyone will listen now.

You're assuming people always vote RON first. What about if someone thinks all candidates bar one (or two, or three, or four) are so disastrous they'd rather nominations were re-opened than have anyone else get in?

Daniel

[Al]

You're assuming people always vote RON first. What about if someone thinks all candidates bar one (or two, or three, or four) are so disastrous they'd rather nominations were re-opened than have anyone else get in?

True. I guess some people will do that. However, there is no real chance of RON ever winning. It would be just as easy to just put a 1 by the candidate the voter wants and leave all other spaces blank. And if they had kept RON as it was originally intended and operated - that is, purely for exec officers who would otherwise have been unopposed - then that situation would never arise. For some reason, RON has gone from being designed to protect unopposed candidates for exec posts from criticism from the "'You weren't even elected' brigade" to being something that every candidate - unopposed or not; exec position or not - has to face.

[Delts]

There has been at least one election where RON won the vote (Macintosh senior student a few years back). So he's not completely useless, and yes, he should always be personified.

[Jono]

There has been at least one election where RON won the vote (Macintosh senior student a few years back). So he's not completely useless, and yes, he should always be personified.

The Chattan elections were very specific circumstances. It was driven by a desire to cut out the clause barring anyone who hadn't lived the previous two semesters in hall from becoming the Senior Student. That year, it restricted the election to about four potential candidates, none of whom were paticularly endearing, or else wanted to stand. In the end, the election was re-run after we had an AGM.

The Union elections are in a completely different league. There are no restrictions on candidacy to any student. There is a clear week in which candidates can get their nominations in, and so there's always going to be the feeling that, were anyone else going to run, they would, or should, have got their nominations in like everybody else.

I think the problem with RON is that it's treated on the ballot as equivalent to a candidate. It would perhaps have more relevance if, rather than requiring the 50% +1 acclaimation, Nominations would be re-opened if, say, 25% - 1/3 of the total valid vote asked for it. Of course, that opens a whole new can of worms.

[Chase the pigeons]

Do we know if the count is now finished? The twitter feed doesn't say it is but its inactivity would suggest it may be.
Also when will full results be posted?

[RandomMusings]

There are still 9 results to count. 3 contested positions and 6 uncontested positions. They hope to have them finished by the end of the day.