Comments on: Breaking: Blake disqualified from Presidential Race

By: Stephanie Ryan

Stephanie Ryan — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 06:12:09 +0000

OK, so the fundamental problem is that the Code wording refers to “apparent” slates, which are not defined. This is dumb, and leaves the interpretation of Code open to abuse. A couple of Arts Councillors, including myself, tried to clarify the wording in Code last year and were completely shut down.

Could this just be a case of bad karma?

By: Spencer

Spencer — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 22:12:49 +0000

The rule is that a reasonable person should not believe that you are part of a group of candidates endorsing each other (“mutual advantage”), and that the candidate has a positive obligation to prevent such impressions from developing (hence the expansive “real or apparent”).

Beyond that, the scale of the punishment is determined by the Election Committee’s belief as to whether or not the infraction caused a material effect on the outcome.

As an example, in 2005 one candidate was found to have had his website registered and paid on the credit card of a candidate in another race. He got a 24hr campaign suspension. In a more relevant example, despite lots of candidates doing speeches at the same time, it was ruled (if I recall correctly) that a line was crossed when one candidate told a classroom to “Vote progressive” when numerous candidates had explicitly identified themselves as “progressive.” That person also received a campaign suspension (I think) but it hardly mattered anyway when they won by 500 votes. The first guy lost his position so it also didn’t matter.

By: Mike Thicke

Mike Thicke — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 21:29:22 +0000

Ok, so the rule is you can campaign with other candidates as long as you don’t like them?

By: Willem

Willem — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 20:14:42 +0000

This whole slate idea seems like a very imprecise notion with a huge grey area, which has always troubled me about the idea of banning them.

I guess 'case law' will start to clarify some of the grey areas.

The only other way I can think of to avoid the problems associated with slates is to move to a more parliamentary system, with Council choosing the VPs. However, I don't think this idea would fly.

By: marc

marc — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 08:49:35 +0000

If the complaint was filed on the Tuesday before voting, why did it just come out now (after the results had been announced)? Surely if there was doubt it would have been further investigated then?

Also it's a bit funny how, if Blake is forced to step down and Alex assumes the president role, it would be all the candidates that commerce endorsed..

"I don't know but I've been told.... (repeat)
Sauder sucks."

By: Commodore Cuddles

Commodore Cuddles — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 08:13:15 +0000

Maria, shouldn’t you be in bed sleeping off fever?

This is nothing more than false information planted by pro-keg terrorists.

By: Green Machine

Green Machine — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 05:49:08 +0000

Classroom announcements: Tristan asked Sarina during the all candidates meeting if people could make classroom announcements together. She said yes, in front of all the candidates.

By: Durgan

Durgan — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 05:27:10 +0000

Alright; this is totally absurd. Of all the candidates in the entire ams elections Blake probably ran the cleanest campaign.

I thought it was rather peculiar that at least one of the election administrators was a member of RBF and a contributor to one of the vfm candidates. Then when they rushed through the investigation of irregularities at Vanier (cookie-gate) it was far too quick and not at all thorough, missing or not following up on crucial evidence; like for instance there were at least two witnesses that reported this, while they spent their time disparaging one of them. What kind of 'questionable biases' did the other eyewitness have? Also the eyewitness reported that it happened on Thursday or Friday, not Sunday - the day the EA investigated with RAs.

Also; what is the rush? The deadline for filing complaints has not even happened yet. I for one intended to file at least three tomorrow.

It seems clear to me that the election administration is severely biased, if not directly conspiring with certain other candidates. There is no other explanation for this kind of decision, unless they have some evidence to prove their conclusion.

The question arises: what do you do in the case of a corrupt election admin? This is starting to look like a student court case.

Blake won this election fair and square, which is more than anyone can say about some of the other "winners."