Home

TheSinner.net

ELECTION RESULTS

This message board is for discussing anything in any way remotely connected with St Andrews, the University or just anything you want. Welcome!

Re:

Postby David Bean on Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:41 pm

The reason why Louise got fewer votes than at the start was that she was fined as well as Michael - each received a fine of 25 votes (for reasons that others are free to explain, but I don't think it's really my place).

It's true that the electoral system is extremely tough to understand, and possibly the only person in the university who does understand it fully is Marco Biagi, but does this really matter? The important point is that it genuinely does result in the most generally-acceptable candidate for for any given position. If, for instance, Michael had not been fined, he and I would have been exactly tied on first preference votes, and the decision would have had to have been made by a casting vote of the senior elections officer, which hardly seems fair at all. However, under STV, it seemed that more of those whose first preference was for Louise or Mel would rather have had me in the job than Michael, and the STV system allowed that preference to be reflected, which is surely better than leaving it up to the senior elections officer to decide who was elected. The mathematics that allowed this preference to be taken into account fairly aren't all that important, as long as the preference was reflected in the final result.

Chris Marks took the DoES job automatically because it was decided when the split was ratified that he, as the elected candidate for DoS, should be allowed to decide which area of the job he wanted to take up. Re-running his election wouldn't have made sense because he would have had to win another election for a position he had already essentially won. However, running a separate election for the position he didn't want also made sense, because it meant that people like myself who were never interested in assuming the ES part of the original remit would not have had to stand for it. For instance, had I ran for DoS on the assumption that I would take DoES, I wouldn't have been able to campaign effectively because I would have needed to make everyone understand that the split was happening and I only wanted half of the job in order to make them understand why the policies I was proposing completely ignored that area of the remit (and nobody would have voted for a DoS who said nothing about the Bop). Forby which, at the time of the last election it wasn't even certain that the split was going to take place, and so naturally it wouldn't have been in anyone's interests for me to stand for a job I could only have made a good fist of half of (because if I'd won, I'd have cocked up the ES remit big time, because I'd be useless at it). When they re-ran the election, I was able to say to people, look, I reckon I'm the best person for this new job, and if you agree, please vote for me. There wasn't any confusion about which job I was actually standing for.

It's possible to get a fraction of a vote because when Michael's 25 votes were fined, it was necessary to work out what proportion of his second preferences in total went to each other candidate, and then to allocate them to the others proportionally - the only other possibility would have been to redistribute the first 25 of his votes at random, which would have been unfair because they might not have reflected the overall preference of his voters for other candidates (by chance, one of us might have taken, say, all of his second preference votes, when if a different random sample had been taken, those votes might have gone to someone else). Naturally the proportion of the 25 votes that happened to be allocated to each other candidate included a decimal fraction of a vote - hence I, for instance, ended up with 0.69 of a vote on the first tally. The only strange thing is that the EOC didn't treat Louise's votes in the same way - but that was only because they managed to work out that whilst the immediate redistribution of Michael's fine might have made a difference between whether he or Mel came second, Louises wouldn't have made any difference to the final order at all, so it didn't actually matter. In any event, the eventual outcome in terms of who was elected (even had no fines been levied at all) would not have been affected however the EOC had treated them. Don't worry, guys: I might look like a cowboy, but my name's not George Bush, and I ain't stolen any elections here ;)
Psalm 91:7
David Bean
 
Posts: 3053
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re:

Postby Eliot Wilson on Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:55 pm

Quoting Ben Reilly from 20:33, 23rd Apr 2005
At no point prior to the first set of elections was it fully determined that the job was going to be split (i.e. no Board or Court approval as is required for a new sabbatical (it requires an amendment to the constitution)).


Are you saying that the new sabbatical position in fact has no constitutional validity? Or has approval been sought and obtained since the first elections?

[hr]

Bill and Ted beat the Grim Reaper at Twister

Bill: "You played very well, Death, especially with your totally heavy Death robes."

Death: "Don't patronise me."
Bill and Ted beat the Grim Reaper at Twister

Bill: "You played very well, Death, especially with your totally heavy Death robes."

Death: "Don't patronise me."
Eliot Wilson
 
Posts: 2138
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2002 11:09 am

Re:

Postby Bryn on Sat Apr 23, 2005 6:04 pm

Quoting Eliot Wilson from 20:55, 23rd Apr 2005
Quoting Ben Reilly from 20:33, 23rd Apr 2005
At no point prior to the first set of elections was it fully determined that the job was going to be split (i.e. no Board or Court approval as is required for a new sabbatical (it requires an amendment to the constitution)).


Are you saying that the new sabbatical position in fact has no constitutional validity? Or has approval been sought and obtained since the first elections?


The latter.

[hr]

http://bryn.ipfox.com
Bryn
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 3:04 pm

Re:

Postby adam freeman on Sat Apr 23, 2005 6:11 pm

thanks ben and david -- i just wanted to get some sort of info onside about all this...all you people were saying 'ooh split split split' before the first election -- so it couldn't have been a complete surprise that the split occurred. was just wondering whether you'd sorted out in your minds how the system was going to work before you put out the ballot boxes for the first time, which it seems you hadn't. ah well. worse things have happened.

i mean it when i say that i think ALL the candidates on friday were great, so i have absolutely no objection to the eventual winner at all. just as a final idea to throw out there, what if i had voted for chris marks on the strength of his wonderful societies/activities proposals? i was extremely sceptical about his awful events/services suggestions, of course. but i was willing to let that slide because the activites stuff made up for it. well i've been gazumped! <<< [characters are entirely fictional and may not represent the opinions of me]
adam freeman
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 5:33 pm

Re:

Postby Al on Sat Apr 23, 2005 6:46 pm

"While he could have, theoretically, chosen to do the entire job for the year, the ents and socs officers would probably have killed him if their degrees went down the drain (a not unknown occurrence for ents officers) because he'd chosen to do that. Instead, it was decided to hold a by-election at the earliest possible opportunity."

That doesn't make much sense. If no Board and Court approval for the new sabb post had been given by the time of the first elections then the people who stood for ents and socs had no way of knowing that any such approval would be forthcoming. They could have ended up doing all the work of previous officers. Either, or both, of Board or Court could have refused to allow the new sabb position. Surely the most sensible approach would have been to delay the DOS election until the decision had been made on the new sabbatical position.

[hr]

Life is too important to be taken seriously.
Al
 
Posts: 3992
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re:

Postby Ben Reilly on Sat Apr 23, 2005 6:58 pm

Al- indeed they could not have known at the time they stood, but that doesn't really matter. What does matter is if they had gone on to fail their degree, while knowing that Chris had chosen not to split their job, the outcome would not have been pleasant.

As to why the DoS wasn't delayed, I don't know, sorry.
Ben Reilly
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:55 pm

Re:

Postby Marco Biagi on Sun Apr 24, 2005 12:21 am

You can get fractions of votes if the Election Officers' Committee starts fining people. It's based on 25 out of Choong's 213 having to be redistributed to the next available preference, but since you don't know which 25, you have to add a proportion of 25 equal to their proportion of the 213 to each candidate's votes.

The lesson is don't fine votes unless you ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO. I've spent a while trying to think of a way to do it without reasonably being obliged to do this complication while still abiding by the underpinning principles of the voting system.

Also, I'd credit Ben Reilly with knowing the STV system as well as I do. (Just about.)

[hr]

No more elections. Except tragically watching this General Election.
And hello Mum.
Marco Biagi
 
Posts: 1218
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re:

Postby Al on Sun Apr 24, 2005 5:15 am

It would be logically more defensible to adopt the position that a fined vote is a fined vote, and to forget about redistribution. After all, how can a voter express a second preference without expressing a first preference?

[hr]

Life is too important to be taken seriously.
Al
 
Posts: 3992
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re:

Postby JAK on Sun Apr 24, 2005 6:29 pm

Quoting Al from 08:15, 24th Apr 2005
It would be logically more defensible to adopt the position that a fined vote is a fined vote, and to forget about redistribution. After all, how can a voter express a second preference without expressing a first preference?

[hr]

Life is too important to be taken seriously.


Then how to decide which 25 second preferences to be fined?

Or, alternatively, the candidate is being fined, not those who voted for him. Why should they not be able to express other preferences for different candidates over one another because the candidate they voted for first was fined?

[hr]

I got my BBC
I got my BBC
JAK
 
Posts: 264
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 5:37 pm

Re:

Postby liliputian on Sun Apr 24, 2005 7:03 pm

I really do not understand the vote fining system. As far as I see they were no actual votes removed, merely a number deducted from the first preferences, therefore when it came to redistribution all votes would be included as to do so would negate a person's vote entirely.

In other words, after the first round when Michael and I had our votes removed, one should just remember that when it comes to redistributing and adding redistributed votes to people such as Michael after myself and Mel were redistributed that he is less 25 votes. There was no need to theorectically redistribute his votes after the first round.

So as far as I understand the numbers should have followed as so:
Choong 214 -25 190 213 285
Bean 212 216 260 365
Boyd 145 149 204
Hallman 132 -25 108
RON 8

No decimal places, merely numbers deducted.

But obviously Marco is far more knowledgeable that I am, given he is totally obsessed with STV, but I really see his reasoning as totally pointless.

[hr]

i know you want the sin but not the sinner...
[i:143mmj9f]i know you want the sin but not the sinner...[/i:143mmj9f]

http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37100186
liliputian
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 3:25 am

apathy

Postby unimpressed on Sun Apr 24, 2005 8:18 pm

and does anybody actually care?? what difference does it make who gets to be milk-monitor??

all these union positions solely exist to serve the CVs and egos of holier than thou prats.

oh well, i suppose if it gives people a (mis-)sense of meaningful purpose and importance, it can't be all bad!! i look forward to the radical improvements in my student life that *always* occur every year after a union election...many thanks in advance for acheiving nothing!
unimpressed
 

Re:

Postby joker on Sun Apr 24, 2005 8:43 pm

where's Ben Esq when you need him? anyone else up for a rant on how important the union really is? i don't think i have the inner strength right now.

[hr]

[s]fly like a mouse, run like a cushion, be the small bookcase, dare to believe.[/s]
[s]fly like a mouse, run like a cushion, be the small bookcase, dare to believe.[/s]
joker
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 2:33 pm

Re:

Postby flarewearer on Sun Apr 24, 2005 10:30 pm

I think the burning question that we all want answered is; Daddy or Chips?

[hr]

[s]It's 106 miles to Chicago. We've got a full tank of gas and half a pack of cigarettes. It's dark and we're wearing sunglasses. Hit it.[/s]
http://www.magnificentoctopus.com/
flarewearer
 
Posts: 4908
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 11:55 pm

Re:

Postby Cain on Mon Apr 25, 2005 6:07 am

Quoting flarewearer from 01:30, 25th Apr 2005
I think the burning question that we all want answered is; Daddy or Chips?


I believe that if you get 250 signatures then you can have a referendum on said topic.

[hr]

I hold an element of surprise
I hold an element of surprise
Cain
User avatar
 
Posts: 4439
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2003 8:31 am

Re:

Postby niall on Mon Apr 25, 2005 6:22 am

Quoting flarewearer from 01:30, 25th Apr 2005
I think the burning question that we all want answered is; Daddy or Chips?



http://www.thesinner.net/poll-index.php?page=50

about half the waydown!

(needs the option to view the poll individually!)

[hr]

do you have a tastyspoon?

http://www.tastyspoon.com/forum

IMAGE:www.danasoft.com/vipersig.jpg
niall
 
Posts: 1714
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 1:01 am
Location: Motherwell, Scotland

Re:

Postby Jamie potton on Mon Apr 25, 2005 7:03 am

Quoting Eliot Wilson from 20:55, 23rd Apr 2005
Quoting Ben Reilly from 20:33, 23rd Apr 2005
At no point prior to the first set of elections was it fully determined that the job was going to be split (i.e. no Board or Court approval as is required for a new sabbatical (it requires an amendment to the constitution)).


Are you saying that the new sabbatical position in fact has no constitutional validity? Or has approval been sought and obtained since the first elections?


The innovation *cough* that was the Head of Marketing, Media and Design is now a staff position - so this post takes the place of that sabbatical in the constitutional settlement - no amendment necessary, apparently...

I am still unconvinced as to the merits of yet further positions held by students. If the split to DoES will bring more commercial success, why not employ a professional, with the relevant experience and proven ability?
Jamie potton
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 2:01 pm

Re:

Postby Eliot Wilson on Mon Apr 25, 2005 7:12 am

It could also be argued that the rearrangement of the sabbatical positions was conducted at least in part because it was felt by some that we had too many. We now have four sabbaticals AND a staff member, doing the work previously done by four sabbaticals. Were the President and VPC/VPR/VPS really so overworked? Having known some of them, I have my doubts.

[hr]

Bill and Ted beat the Grim Reaper at Twister

Bill: "You played very well, Death, especially with your totally heavy Death robes."

Death: "Don't patronise me."
Bill and Ted beat the Grim Reaper at Twister

Bill: "You played very well, Death, especially with your totally heavy Death robes."

Death: "Don't patronise me."
Eliot Wilson
 
Posts: 2138
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2002 11:09 am

Re:

Postby Light the Rag on Mon Apr 25, 2005 7:54 am

Quoting Jamie Potton from 10:03, 25th Apr 2005

The innovation *cough* that was the Head of Marketing, Media and Design is now a staff position - so this post takes the place of that sabbatical in the constitutional settlement - no amendment necessary, apparently...


Why the "cough"?
And are you sure that HoMMD is a staff position now?
Light the Rag
 
Posts: 122
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re:

Postby niall on Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:27 am

Quoting Eliot Wilson from 10:12, 25th Apr 2005
Were the President and VPC/VPR/VPS really so overworked? Having known some of them, I have my doubts.


it wasnt that the saabs are over worked, it was that certain members of the SSC were being overworked, and they still have to study while holding office. only one of the last 7 ents officers graduated (without repeating) and both ents officer and deputy ents officer that started this year have stood down. that is one of the reasons behind the split


[hr]

do you have a tastyspoon?

http://www.tastyspoon.com/forum

IMAGE:www.danasoft.com/vipersig.jpg
niall
 
Posts: 1714
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 1:01 am
Location: Motherwell, Scotland

Re:

Postby Pender Native on Mon Apr 25, 2005 11:14 am

Could we be given badges, or stickers or a felt tip pen squiggle on our foreheads or something when we vote? After I voted on th friday I was mobbed five times by various groups of campaigners, and it gets annoying. I understand they want to get everyone's attention, but is there anyway of making them leave the people who have already voted alone?

[hr]

'I like to listen to a man who likes to talk. Whoops! Sawdust and Treacle, put that in your herring and smoke it!' - quote from the Bursar in Terry Pratchett's Discworld books. Hope that clears up any confusion as to my personal tastes!
"I have seen flowers come in stony places
And kind things done by men with ugly faces,
And the gold cup won by the worst horse at the races,
So I trust, too."
Pender Native
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 5:46 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Sinner's Main Board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests