06 February, 2009

teehee!

A shit storm started in the Blogosphere tonight with an email allegedly from the Election's Admin stating that Blake Frederick has been disqualified.

The email was sent from a personal Gmail account on a Friday night that has no link to Sarina other than name (and the same one that sent out the oh so silly CookieGate email) All other contact the DA has received from Sarina has been through the official elections email - (Elections@ams.ubc.ca)

Sure, it could be real, but is likely misinformation planted by pro-Keg activists in a last ditch attempt to seize the reigns of power. Everyone else can go to sleep.

7 comments:

scott said...

from another vfm:
"...as the rules were infringed upon only by one candidate..."

if the rules were only infringed upon by "one candidate," how is this supposed to be a "slate"?

without any knowledge of who was a part of this Elections Administrator-alleged "slate" (not yet released),through a mandate of impartiality, the EA committee shouldn't be establishing differential treatment between candidates: why is only one candidate in this "slate" penalized?


furthermore, if allegations about slate behavior are going to be accepted, with the the tradition of promoting candidates, how is this different from the oh-so-original "Radical Beer Faction" candidates (http://radicalbeerfaction.tripod.com/), with a proud historical (political) tradition of running "joke" candidates and promises of of beer upon election (not unlike the RBT VFM, and other candidates)?

hmmmm...

i'm having some difficulties with this, both with the sincerity of the report from the supposed EA, as well as the political motivation behind it.

if it's a joke, it's a poor one.

it doesn't reflect positively on the elections committee either way.

Anonymous said...

email address: Sarina was having trouble with the official email address throughout the election

Andrew Carne said...

Scott:

I believe the RBF candidate site you point to stems from when the AMS did in fact allow slates. It was a relatively recent change to disallow them.


In regards to the rest of this matter, it seems like we're not going to get a clear answer on all this until after the weekend once more information becomes available.

Spencer said...

To Scott:

As a casual onlooker on this election I think it's pretty clear that they mean one candidate in the presidential race has been ruled to have violated the Code.

Punishment in AMS elections is based on precedent and proportionality rather than a "Violate Rule A; goto Punishment B" model where it's all predetermined. The metric that matters the most is whether the Elections Committee believes there was a violation of the rules that had a material effect on the election. So if there were other members of the slate, there is cause to not disqualify them and only, for instance, sanction them by reducing their candidate refund if the Elections Committee a) didn't think it mattered because they already lost and by definition it did not have a material effect, or b) they won by such a substantial margin that the Elections Committee thought it highly unlikely that the candidate won through any accrued advantage.

It's also relevant to know that the phrase "mutual advantage" is not an off-the-cuff term in the Code but carefully constructed to reflect the kinds of activities that were desirable to ban. Nobody cares if you used the same graphic designer, or borrowed each others tape, or even worked with other candidates when putting up posters. What matters is whether or not a reasonable person could look at what a person is saying or doing and come to the conclusion that they're endorsing others.

It's somewhat nebulous, admittedly, but this is also why the phrase "real or apparent" is used. It puts a positive obligation on the candidate to run as their own person and to discourage slate-like behaviour.

Cheers,

Blast from the Past

Tanja said...

Let’s get over the nonsense that the current post-elections controversy is the result of EA bias. What’s happening right now is the result of vague and incoherent election code that does not serve the interests of students and candidates. The question of what an 'apparent slate' is needs to be answered, in detail, by current council so that Rehal and all future EAs have a set of coherent rules to enforce. Candidates have a right to submit complaints and the EA has a duty to examine evidence and rule accordingly. If there is strong evidence of another ‘apparent slate’ this needs to be addressed immediately, I hope that anyone with compelling evidence will step forward and present it. We need to guarantee that the AMS is run by honest candidates who conduct themselves by the rules designed to ensure that they are accountable to us at all times. Finally do not forget that we owe a debt of gratitude to Rehal, who in an incredibly limited time put together an election that saw the highest voter turnout in 2 decades. Three cheers for our EA.

Anonymous said...

Tanja: did you even read the post, or did you just copy/paste the same response on all the student media blogs?

JMac604 said...

First and foremost the Kommander would like to express his dislike of this scott character (first poster).

The Kommander was not a "joke" candidate, he was a joke "candidate". There was nothing funny about him, only about the race he was running in, and thats the nature of these less-than-conventional candidates running.

As for the supposed RBF slates, there is nothing to hold that allegation together besides the fact that all of the supposed joke "candidates" were members of the Radical Beer Faction Club at UBC, so are 300 other students, there was no mention of the RBF in any of the candidates platforms. Do your research.

And speaking of research, if one reads the Elections Code, one will find that VFM's are not subject to the same rules as candidates, as the race is not in nearly the same context. It is the role of the VFM's to inform the masses about the election, and what better way to do so than by banding together? In terms of candidates running in an election, they must do the best job, individually, of impressing upon people that they are the best candidate. The VFM's are supposed to get that message to the most number of people as possible.

So Mr. scott, kiss my shiny metal ass.


-KK