A clear democratic mandate

From last week's Peak:

“This is a clear democratic mandate. There is no way to read these results as anything but a clear indication that SFU wants to leave the Federation.”
- Derrick Harder, SFSS President

The following pie chart roughly estimates how the vote was split on the CFS question:
While I'm happy 2,969 people turned out to vote for defederation, this is about as far away from a "clear democratic mandate" as you can get before you hit Cuba.

This isn't a knock against all the people who worked really hard to make the turnout as big as it was. Student elections normally achieve less than 10% voter turnout. The above graph was made with a generous 20% turnout (I've asked the Chief Commissioner of the IEC for the official turnout rate, and will update this post when I hear back from him) (UPDATE: According to the CC of the IEC, 4,541 students voted, so estimating about 24,000 students in total makes the turnout to be around 19%). By my estimations, the voter turnout was around 17-18%, which is absolutely fantastic for a student election

But let's not kid ourselves. Upwards of 80% of students said they could care less about what happens with the SFSS. If there's any sort of mandate to draw from the results of the election, it's that our newly elected members have a lot of work in front of them to make themselves relevant to the average student.

Responses to Johnny and Amanda

Ok, so Johnny outlined why he's against the Society Development Fund. Last week, I indicated that I'm in favour of the Fund. Here's why: I want to see what the SFSS can do with all that extra money.

Now, I understand the apprehension Johnny may have over dumping $430,000 into a largely undefined "fund". However, I don't think we should have the SFSS continually coming back to the electorate to approve funds for important projects. There are projects, like the renovations to student spaces on campus, that the SFSS is already working on and that should be completed as soon as possible. I'd rather give the SFSS the money and let them do what students elected them to do. I'm willing to give them a chance to impress me.

What if they don't impress? If the SFSS doesn't do well, students only have to wait a year to kick them out. Or depending on the circumstances, students can impeach the whole lot of them. I think recent history has shown that SFU students can effectively hold their student society representatives accountable.

Having said all that, I should mention that I'm no longer a student, so none of that $430,000 will actually be coming out of my wallet. Nevertheless, if I was a student, I'd still support establishing the Fund.



On an entirely unrelated note, I must also respectfully disagree with Amanda Sung's assertion that if this had been a municipal, provincial, or federal election, Xenia would have been labeled indecisive because she is a woman. Yes, I agree that she would have been portrayed as being indecisive. However, she'd be portrayed that way not because she's a woman, but because she in fact reversed her decision about running. She announced that she wasn't running and then changed her mind and entered the race.

I doubt the media would treat Joe Paling any differently if he had done that instead of Xenia. His opponents certainly wouldn't have thought twice about calling him indecisive. If that's what his opponents are focusing on, the media isn't going to overlook it because Joe is a man. Paul Martin and Stephane Dion immediately come to mind as examples. When the federal Conservatives accused Paul Martin of dithering, the media picked it up. More recently, the media has reported on Stephane Dion's seeming indecision over when to bring down the government. I simply can't see the media linking gender with decisive/indecisiveness.

-1

The results from the other four referendums are in, and all passed with comfortable margins:

• Question #2: Society Development Fund
  Yes: 3,010 (73%)
  No: 1,123 (27%)
  
  
• Question #3: Ending Acclamations
  Yes: 3,125 (79%)
  No: 848 (21%)
  
  
• Question #4: Membership in student organizations
  Yes: 2,497 (69%)
  No: 1,140 (31%)
  
  
• Question #5: Undergraduate health plan
  Yes: 3,559 (83%)
  No: 751 (17%)

I've already talked about Question #2 (disappointed, but the people have spoken, or at least the ones who like giving money away did). I'm "whatever"s about the other three passing.

On Question #3 of ending acclamations, it felt good to vote for it, but it will probably be rare that a "yes/no" candidate ever fails to get elected. It would take some sort of huge public relations disaster to motivate enough people to vote "no" against you (and I mean huge -- like, three or four Joe Palings worth).

The Question #4 on membership in student organizations is apparently to prevent the SFSS from joining another CFS again. It reminds me of a bad computer science joke which goes, "if you strive to make a program fool-proof, the universe will just make a bigger fool." Hmm... "if you strive to make running a student society fool-proof, the universe will just make a bigger fool." Hey, it still works!

The last question on a health/dental plan for undergrads is interesting because it won by the largest margin of any of the other referendums. I personally wouldn't have thought undergrads were that interested in a health/dental plan. We'll see how thrilled they are when they learn it will run them an extra hundred bucks a semester.

VFM Networking Party

I've been meaning to write something about the Voter-Funded Media Networking Party that was held two weekends ago, but I haven't had a chance to with all the election/referendum activity. Since that's somewhat behind us now, I'll offer my impressions of the party. For anyone who missed it, here's a time-lapse of part of the party.



I was surprised that there weren't more SFU VFM contestants in attendance. In hindsight, I shouldn't have been surprised since it was in the middle of the midterm/finals period.

I was surprised by the political enthusiasm of a lot of the guests. In hindsight, I shouldn't have been surprised since VFM is intended to cover political happenings and the party invitation clearly said that student politicians would be attending. Don't get me wrong, political enthusiasm is great. I think I was surprised because I don't get that same sense of political enthusiasm (and political insider-ness) from reading SFU VFM blogs.

The assortment of food and refreshments was very good.

About a week after the party, I found out that Brad Coleman had attended the party as well. In hindsight, I think I was standing right beside him near the end of the party and didn't realize it. I'm pretty sure it must have been him since I met everyone else at the party. It's too bad I didn't get to meet him since I had been poking fun at him for not posting any content on his blog. I chatted with his friends though and they're very nice people. For the record, Brad has content now.

Speaking of VFM...there are just a few days left to rate the media in this month's VFM contest. If you've got an SFU computing ID and you like Instant Blog, please take a second to vote:

If you've voted in previous months, click here.
If you've never voted before, click here.

Final Results

Looks like the recounts are finished. The final election results and referendum results are in.

Johnny already offered some witty commentary on the results. Hopefully I'll find time to add my own comments soon, especially since Johnny and I are apparently on opposite sides of the Development Fund referendum question.

The Aftermath

While it seems a recount is still underway, Joe Paling has presumably won the title of SFSS president. In other news, the CFS defederation campaign was successful, claiming 66% support.

If I may offer some advice to the CFS: next time you're campaigning to keep a school in your clutches, perhaps you could allegedly sexually harass the "No" Campaign? Comment on the brightness of the "No" Campaign's pants? Make disgusting claims about "No" Campaign's back hair? Just saying -- it seems to be a winning strategy.

I'm happy to see the "No" side won out (although we have to see what the CFS's next move will be), so now I'm hoping the Development Fund referendum fails.

Let me explain.

It seems every candidate runs on promise of working to reduce tuition fees. A noble goal, perhaps, but one no SFSS candidate really has any control over. So long as they make the appearance of doing something that's enough to check the promise off on their list.

But student fees are something the SFSS has control over. And it seems only fair that if we are asking the government and the university to tighten its belt to make education more affordable for us that we do the same.

Now that the SFSS has a mandate from its members to defederate it certainly might require extra fees to fill in the gaps where the CFS used to be. However, a horrendously vague "Society Development Fund" is never going to get my vote. Show me the need you wish to fund and let me vote on it next year.

The "No" side and the SFSS campaigned on the idea that the CFS membership fees were not a good use of our student fees, after all. If that's true, then let's see some proof: show us we can get the same value for less and reduce our overall student fees.

Preliminary SFSS Election Winners

With over 90% of votes counted, the Independent Electoral Commission has declared the following preliminary winners:

President: Joe Paling
Treasurer: Anna Belkine
External Relations: Natalie Bocking
Member Services: Earl Von Tapia
University Relations: Ali Godson
Internal Relations: Andrew Fergusson

Arts Rep: Ada Nadison
App Sci Rep: Result still to be announced
Business Rep: Henry Liu
Science Rep: Result still to be announced
Members at Large: Jonathan Brockman and Mona Law

Education Rep: Sara Olson (acclaimed)
Health Sci Rep: Tara Azimi (acclaimed)

Preliminary CFS Membership Referendum Results by Day and Polling Station

Here are the unofficial day-by-day, poll-by-poll results published by Earl Tapia, President of the Philosophy Student Union and one of the candidates for Member Services Officer. These results (other than the overall NO 66% and YES 32%) have not yet been confirmed by the Independent Electoral Commission.


-------

Things to note:

- These numbers are only for the first referendum question, which was continuing membership in the CFS.
- I don't have the numbers for spoiled/blank ballots or the mail-in ballots (15 mail-in ballots I think was the total?) because I was in and out during the counting, but from what I remember hearing they were small and insignificant and/or they haven't come in yet.
- These are the unofficial results, and may change by a couple of numbers. The IEC will most likely release the official numbers sometime when all the referendum question results are released.
- I just did the math, and the numbers I'm getting now are off by about 10 - 20 for each side compared to some very early numbers that were released. Not enough to make any real difference, but should still be noted. This can most likely be attributed to my shoddy note taking and, in general, my frazzled state of mind.
- If you're not concerned about the individual polling stations, the totals are at the bottom.
- Forward to anyone and everyone.

MARCH 18

Surrey:
Y 52
N 149

Vancouver:
Y 53
N 50

Burnaby:
West Mall
Y 78
N 135

AQ
Y 226
N 406

Library
Y 138
N 295


MARCH 19

Surrey:
Y 24
N 61

Vancouver:
Y 18
N 43

Burnaby:
West Mall
Y 60
N 112

AQ
Y 216
N 470

Library
Y 115
N 276


MARCH 20

Surrey:
Y 36
N 78

Vancouver:
Y 30
N 46

Burnaby:
West Mall
Y 61
N 106

AQ
Y 220
N 450

Library
Y 135
N 251


TOTALS:

Surrey:
Y 112
N 288

Vancouver:
Y 101
N 139

Burnaby:
Y 1249
N 2501

ALL CAMPUSES
Y 1462
N 2928

I don't want to give the exact percentage, because I don't have the numbers for the spoiled/blank and mail-in ballots, but it's around 66%.

SFU Says NO to CFS (Again)

Early this morning, Amy Fox, External Relations Officer for the SFSS, announced that for a second year in a row SFU students have voted to leave the Canadian Federation of Students.

Referendum Question:
Are you in favour of maintaining membership in the Canadian Federation of Students?

Results (as unofficially posted on Facebook):
NO 2948 (67%)
YES 1452 (33%)

[edit 3:35 am: at this hour, the Independent Electoral Commission is reporting NO (66%) and YES (32%) on their website.]

Voter Turnout: approx. 19%

UVIC Grad Students Vote NO to CFS

The Martlet, UVIC's student newspaper is reporting that UVIC's grad students have voted to leave the Canadian Federation of Students. Fifty-eight percent of voters voted against maintaining CFS membership.

[update 11:45 am: here's the breakdown...

No: 260
Yes: 192
Spoiled: 5

(Quorum was 125 votes)]

Record Turnout

I've heard that yesterday's voter turnout was a record for a non-upass referendum. You can still vote in both the referenda and elections today and tomorrow from 9:30 am to 7:30 pm.

Voting stations will be set up in the AQ, WMX, and Library as well as the lobbies of the Harbour Centre and Surrey campuses.

Both undergraduate and graduate students can vote. Remember to bring your student card.

Fed Wars

"I am CFS-- Celebrity Style" is the best anti-CFS group on Facebook. Check out their Fed Wars video.

Patrick's Picks

Unfortunately, I'm ineligible to vote because I'm not taking any courses at SFU this semester. However...here's how I'd vote if I could vote:

President: Xenia Menzies
Treasurer: Anna Belkine
Member Services Officer: Michael VandenAkker
External Relations Officer: Meagan Thomas
Internal Relations Officer: Haida Arsenault-Antolick
University Relations Officer: Ryan Daw
Members at Large: Jonathan Brockman, John Morrison III

Referendum Questions:

1. Are you in favour of maintaining membership in the Canadian Federation of Students? NO.

2. If the Simon Fraser Student Society ceases to be a member of the Canadian Federation of Students, do you agree that the former CFS membership fees of $7.64 per semester for full time students and $3.82 for part-time students should be redirected into a Society Development Fund which will result in no overall fee increase for students?” YES.

3. Do you support the amendment of By-Law 14 (17) as written?

By-Law 14 (17)
a. If only one valid nomination is received for a particular office, the Independent Electoral Commission will conduct an election in which the nominated candidate will face a “yes/no” election.

b. If a candidate fails to receive a majority of “yes” votes, then the contested position will remain vacant.

YES.


4. Do you support the creation of By-Law 22 as written and the corresponding changes to By-Law 17(3)? YES.

5. Are you in favour of the SFSS developing an extended health and dental plan for undergraduate students? YES.

Vote!

It's time to vote!

Voting will take place on March 18, 19, and 20 from 9:30 am to 7:30 pm every day.

Voting stations will be set up in the AQ, WMX, and Library as well as the lobbies of the Harbour Centre and Surrey campuses.

Both undergraduate and graduate students can vote. Remember to bring your student card.

Poor Judgment or Impaired Judgment?

Although Paling has now apparently taken full responsibility and apologized for his actions, it seems too little, too late. [for background, see Paling Assaults Menzies, Harasses Others]

His initial response during the presidential debate was glib and offensive, given the nature of his actions. The notion that his actions on March 7 occurred within the confines of his personal life is ridiculous. An altercation in a public place with his presidential rival in the middle of an election campaign most certainly falls within the public realm. I found it incredible that Paling apparently did not recognize that as a candidate or in fact, as the sitting SFSS Member Services Officer, he is under increased scrutiny and should expect to be held accountable for his actions even during his leisure time. As with any public figure, his actions on or off the campaign trail, on or off campus reflect on his judgment, values, and integrity.

I'm not suggesting that candidates should be expected to be perfect. Everyone makes mistakes, including myself. However, I find it disturbing that the March 7 incident does not seem to be an isolated occurrence. The Independent Electoral Commission ruling mentions "several instances" of inappropriate behaviour. Paling's apology letter implies that his actions in at least some of these incidents were due to his alcohol consumption. Paling's promise to abstain from alcohol and seek professional help is commendable. Nevertheless, whether his actions were due to poor judgment or impaired judgment, there are serious questions about his ability to fulfill the role of president.

--Patrick

Paling Assaults Menzies, Harasses Others

According to statements made by Xenia Menzies, Joe Paling, and the Chief Electoral Officer, SFSS presidential candidates Joe Paling and Xenia Menzies engaged in an argument at the SFU pub on Friday, March 7, 2008, in which Paling assaulted Menzies. Menzies has stated that Paling grabbed her and attempted to lift up her shirt.

When asked about the incident (by Menzies) during the Presidential debate, Paling accused Menzies of inciting the assault. Paling apparently regarded the incident as a personal matter and suggested that as such, he should not be held publicly accountable.

"I would like people to consider that if you're going to hold politicians accountable for everything they do in their personal lives, you would not have great leaders like Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and Boris Yeltsin," Paling stated.

However, since the debate, Paling has been issued a warning from the Independent Electoral Commission and ordered to issue a written apology to Menzies and three other female candidates, Stephanie Hendy, Natalie Bocking, and Aman Bains. Hendy, Bocking, and Bains officially filed complaints of sexual harassment against Paling regarding other incidents.

In his letter of apology, Paling does not dispute the allegations and now takes full responsibility for his actions. He also promises to abstain from social alcohol consumption for a year and to seek counseling and medical advice on giving up alcohol.

See also Poor Judgment or Impaired Judgment.

--Patrick

SFU VFM So Far

Since Maayan from UBC Insiders reviewed the SFU VFM contest last week, I thought it was about time I offered my perspective as an SFU VFM contestant. For the record, I agree with Maayan's assessment of the contest at SFU. This post may also be timely given Mark Latham's recent proposal to turn UBC's VFM contest into a similar year-round, month-by-month design.

Instant Blog was created to be our entry into the SFU VFM contest. You may have noticed that although VFM is intended to better inform voters, there isn't a lot information being published by the SFU VFM blogs. This might be surprising to some people, especially since the SFSS elections are only five days away. From the perspective of a contestant though, it's not at all surprising.

For the most part, there is a lack of quality content being published. Why? It's simple - you don't need content to win. February's first place winner had one post for the entire month. sfuvfm.blogspot.com has never posted any content, yet has won a total of $70 over two months. What incentive is there to post content, when it has so little to do with reward outcomes?

Right now, rewards are based on ratings from voters, but these ratings (at the moment) are not a particularly good measure of performance. There are so few voters (perhaps because there is little content) that the voting process has been reduced to seeing which contestant can get more of their friends voting for them. As of February 23, 2008, there were only 66 registered voters. By my estimate, 47% of those registered voters are my friends. Without objective voters, ratings will likely not reflect the quality of contestants.

So far it seems that the contest has relied on contestants to promote their blogs and attract new voters. However, judging by the number of registered voters, I think most contestants feel it's more trouble than it's worth to promote beyond their circle of friends. Even within friends and classmates, it's difficult to get the vote out month after month. Despite personally knowing nearly half of all registered voters, I was unable to get enough of them to participate beyond a single month. This was partly because for the most part I didn't try to get them to vote again. I was basically unwilling to spam them with monthly requests to vote in the contest. At least in the short-term, I think the contest needs to move away from relying on contestants to bring in voters.

Overall, contestants are being rewarded for poor performance, there aren't enough voters to make the rating system effective, and contestants are either unable or unwilling to attract more voters. Without much content to attract new objective voters, I think there needs to be a separate incentive for voters. I suggest eliminating the fifth place prize (there are only four active contestants anyway) and redirecting that money towards a prize draw for voters. After rating the contestants, voters can be entered into a fabulous prize draw.

I know it's still early days for the contest, but I thought I should offer my two cents so far.

Second Round of Candidate Debates

All the candidate debates are online now.

First Round of Candidate Debates

Video of the last week's debates between non-executive candidates can be watched here. Candidates running for executive positions will be debating tomorrow at 11 am at the Atrium Cafeteria in the Maggie Benston Centre (MBC).

The Candidates

The candidates running in the SFSS election are listed on the Independent Electoral Commission's website. Many of the candidates have profiles on the website as well.

Patrick

Fairly Coherent, Fairly Intelligent

It's come to my attention that people are actually reading this blog. In fact, two whole people have even taken time to comment on a couple of our blog entries. This is indeed exciting news as it confirms that we have at least five readers! Amy and Maayan, thanks for your comments.

I think we can all agree that Instant Blog has had remarkable success for a blog that was created in 30 seconds. Even our competitors have high praise for Instant Blog:

"Kudos for the Instant Blog in getting up and running and having some good content right away"
says Xenia Menzies of SFU Politics (also SFSS Presidential candidate)

Elise Ikoma of SFU: Food for Thought exclaims,
"a fairly coherent and promising blog...run by what seem to be two fairly intelligent number geeks"

" "
raves Bradley Coleman of SFU VFM.

Nevertheless, the real proof is in how VFM voters have cast their ballots. Instant Blog finished in first place in January and now has won a very solid second place in February's contest. Thank you to all our supporters!!! We love you!

Congratulations to all the other winners and competitors.

And in case you were wondering...yes, we're competing again in March's contest.

Patrick

PS. Although I think Johnny may be accurately described as a "number geek", I'm much much more of a Star Trek geek than any other breed of geek.