ISA President accused of imposing ‘biased’ penalties
ISA President Adam Malik has been accused of personally deciding vote deduction penalties, resulting directly in the election of a number of candidates in recent International Students’ Association elections.
Malik, who was Returning Officer in the elections, was forced to deduct votes as a penalty after seven candidates were accused of breaking election rules.
Deductions were given to some candidates running for President, Treasurer, Internal Officer, Welfare Officer and Press & Publicity Officer. Malik’s girlfriend, Igne Pupelyte, was running for Internal Officer with Dario Palumbo; the pair were victorious following the vote reductions. Countering accusations of bias, Malik commented: “the decision did not reflect the ideas of any one member of the committee, but was made by all four members. The allegations are unfair to me as a person. I consulted with candidates and nobody raised any concerns.”
Speaking on the accusations one candidate confirmed that “many candidates are not happy with the decisions as they suspect that the President knew the result margins and in spite of that still made the decision as to what the vote deduction penalties would be, as oppose to getting a neutral third party.”
The candidate added that “the President’s girlfriend was also one of the candidates that eventually won after penalties were imposed.”
Malik has assured candidates that he excluded himself from discussions relating to his girlfriend’s candidacy.
The results come after the ISA was forced to void election results last week, calling a by-election following accusations of harassment in the recent elections. The ISA withheld results for five days before releasing details of the winners. During this time the executive committee deducted votes from different candidates based on how seriously they breached election rules.
Malik stated at a General Meeting last Wednesday that a number of campaigning rules had been broken. These consisted of pressuring voters, entering blocks without permission and overspending on campaign budgets. In some cases candidates used laptops to show members their campaign pages before trying to convince them to vote on the spot. Malik stated that these complaints could be classed as “harassment” and gave certain candidates “an unfair advantage.” Whilst not naming offenders, he said that they have “investigated both the candidates and the witnesses” and found “some complaints to be valid.”
The reviewed results for the positions of Welfare, Press and Publicity and Internal Activities were announced at a meeting on Friday, with vote reductions being imposed on some candidates.
Albert Chan, one of the two candidates who were standing for President, admitted that he feels “frustrated by the decision.” He believes that “the committee could have handled this more professionally, the rules were flimsy and therefore the decisions that were made can easily be perceived as biased.”
Palumbo, who ran with Pupelyte and was victorious following the penalty deductions stated that “accusations against Malik are completely unfounded and simply not true.” He added that rules for election campaigning were made clear to the candidates at Hustings and by email.
Despite claiming at the meeting on Friday and in an email sent out to all international students on Thursday that the decision to reduce votes was taken “in the presence of a third party – YUSU”, Malik privately said that the final decision had been made with the University.
ISA Vice-President, Lizzouli Rojas, said that the decision to hold a by-election for the positions of President and Treasurer is contingent on “the seriousness of the position on the committee.” She said that entering one of these positions with a reduction of votes would weaken the “integrity” of the successful candidate. Malik agreed that a “weak president” would be detrimental to the reputation of the ISA. Nominations for both positions will be reopened next term.
Despite claims from some members that other nominees felt “uncomfortable” attending the meeting, one candidate, said that the decision to withhold results was the “best thing for the candidates and the best thing for the members.” Malik explained the poor turnout by claiming that “the majority of the members are away” but conceded that “maybe some candidates did not want to come because of the sanctions.”
Palumbo and Pupelyte were announced as Internal Activities officers, Sofia Asatridi and Tim Ang as Press and Publicity, and Yan Hei Li as Welfare. It is unclear whether any of the successful candidates received sanctions as Malik commented that he was “not at liberty to disclose” the identity of anyone.
Malik and Treasurer Nadia Mydin will remain in their positions until the by-election, taking charge of international events during the coming Welcome Week.
115 responses below. Comments are open.
Leave a Reply
Related Posts
Popular This Week
Polls
Loading ...
This article, as well as all of Adam’s critics, are appalling. Adam is one of the most honest and decent persons I have met.
He reached this decision after long consideration, which involved all of the ISA committee. It was not arbitrary, and by no means is the case that Adam imposed his own biased view.
And for people like Albert, let me inform you that this decision is the least hard-core possible. According to other committee members, such as myself, the penalty should be immediate disqualification for all candidates who broke rules. Adam however felt that the rule breaking candidates had enough popular support, thus exclusion would be unfair. He (and the remaining committee) concluded that the only viable and fair option was vote reduction.
I will reiterate: Adam’s decision was not at all biased, and in any case, was not Adam’s. It was an ISA Executive committee decision. And the candidates who feel “frustrated” should remember that this whole problem would have been avoided had they been decent to begin with. One must have some nerve to break rules and then complain for the penalty on top of it, especially when the penalty was not nearly as harsh as it could have been.
A.
The rules were not ‘flimsy’ just because some never bothered to read them. Harassing and coercing people is clearly against them. Using JCRC cards to campaign is clearly against them. Printing above the credit limit is clearly against them – and so on.
Truth be told, when people break the rules to such an extent, they should expect to be penalised. And when so many of our members make so serious complaints, they simply can’t be ignored.
As for the controversy surrounding the penalties; in reality, the only other alternative would have been either disqualification or by-elections for all those positions. If those measures were enforced instead, then the final outcome would have been much worse for those who are now complaining about ‘bias’. It would have been interesting to see how the same people would have reacted if they were disqualified instead, as many of them should have been.
All in all, the only bias I can see here lies in the accusation that Adam was in any way biased. Adam had to make an extremely difficult decision and, no matter his choice, it would have led to such a controversy.
Keep in mind that the decision he took did not benefit any current committee member – all of them lost despite the vote reductions. Nevertheless, all of the current committee supports him completely.
Also, I would like to advise Nouse to research such accusations a bit more. Speaking with the rest of the candidates, most of whom understood and agreed with the decision completely, would have made a bit more sense. But when you only have the opinion of the candidates who were penalised, then yes you will undoubtedly end up with an article about bias. The kind of bias we call ’sour grapes’.
In order to clarify, for everyone to know, it is not the case that the rules could have been misinterpreted or not read. The rules were posted on the facebook group for the ISA elections. If a candidate read them and broke them, then they are clearly in the wrong; if they did not bother reading them, they will not make a very good member. Some of the rules that were broken, copy-pasted:
a. WHEN CAMPAIGNING DO NOT HARASS OR INTIMIDATE OTHER CANDIDATES, INDIVIDUALS OR THEIR SUPPORTERS.
c. Do not enter blocks without the permission of the residents to campaign/put up posters
a. Publicity must be submitted to the GSA/ISA reception for approval. If it is approved, each candidate is given an allowance of £12 in photocopying credit for their campaign posters. These posters MUST be photocopied in the GSA/ISA reception and be stamped as proof. Any non-stamped will be removed.
I do not think the rules could have been expressed with any more clarity than this. If you think they are flimsy, you could have discussed them with the committee, instead of breaking them. Have some integrity and admit you did wrong, rather than accusing an admittedly very good president.
A.
“The rules were posted on the facebook group for the ISA elections”
They were also given to each candidate and explained during hustings.
With so much of “this candidate”, “one candidate”, and “the candidate” that said that “many candidates” conjectures and inconclusive reporting,
I cant even bring myself to acknowledge this as journalism.
we are seriously in need of an objective, honest and accurate university newspaper. This kind of he-says-that-she-says-that reporting doesn’t reflect the intellectuality that we possess as university-educated individuals.
“Deducting votes for infringements”
My word – by doing this, the ISA actually disenfranchised every person who’s vote therefore no longer counted.
The issue should have never got to “how much” should someone be penalized – deducting votes is just plain undemocratic.
So what should have been done Samuel? Just forgive those who broke the rules, without any penalties? Wouldn’t this be unfair to the honest and decent candidates?
Deducting votes is not undemocratic, not in this case. When votes were gained through coercing people to vote for you, a tactic resulting in people feeling harassed, it is our duty to cancel these votes.
In fact, in order to respect democracy, Adam along with the committee decided to reduce the candidate’s votes, instead of taking any other measure. Some of us proposed disqualifying the cheating candidates, but Adam felt that this would be unjust, as these people did have support (undeserved, in my personal opinion). Had we disqualified such candidates, we would not be respecting their voters – thus being undemocratic.
A.
This article severely undermines how much adam has done for the organisation. I’m tremendously disappointed at the accusations and the blatant personal attacks on a president who has done nothing but slog away for an organisation that was practically unknown when i first came to uni. It is a shame that my 2 year tenure in the ISA committee has to end on such a bad note. If anyone should be blamed it is NOT Adam, but the irresponsible candidates who’ve flouted the rules and tainted what would have been one of the most successfully contested elections in the history of the ISA.
“So what should have been done Samuel? Just forgive those who broke the rules, without any penalties? Wouldn’t this be unfair to the honest and decent candidates?”
That’s why elections should be run according to a timetable that splits things into sections. For example, all complaints about campaigning must be made by a certain time – after that, complaints about that section cannot be made. It is standard practice in most elections that once the count begins, only complaints about the count can be made.
“Deducting votes is not undemocratic, not in this case. When votes were gained through coercing people to vote for you, a tactic resulting in people feeling harassed, it is our duty to cancel these votes.”
Yes it is. You’re making a value judgment over why people have voted the way they have voted. I’m not saying you’re wrong that harassment *might* have been the reason, but equally, you don’t know it is true. The only way to assure equality is to treat all votes the same way, i.e. they all count.
“Some of us proposed disqualifying the cheating candidates, but Adam felt that this would be unjust, as these people did have support (undeserved, in my personal opinion). Had we disqualified such candidates, we would not be respecting their voters – thus being undemocratic.”
If the rules these candidates broke stated they should have been disqualified, then this is what should have happened. In this sense it’s NOT undemocratic since it’s actually the said candidate’s actions that led to the result.
Also, the elections were run under preferential voting. When votes were deleted, were they then redistributed to second preferences? If they weren’t, you were changing the rules of the election after people had voted. If they were, it matters massively *which* votes you then deleted.
“Yes it is. You’re making a value judgment over why people have voted the way they have voted. I’m not saying you’re wrong that harassment *might* have been the reason, but equally, you don’t know it is true. The only way to assure equality is to treat all votes the same way, i.e. they all count.”
We do know it’s true, as some people have said so (namely that they only voted because they were coerced in it).
So, your response is “we don’t care if a candidate breached rules, harassing students in doing so, as long as complaints are not made in time”. See, this is what caused the expenses scandals in England: always sticking to formalities, to how things seem, not how they actually are. What matters is not whether you breach a rule in itself, rather if you breach the rationale behind the rule. Exploiting the loop hole in a law is immoral.This response applies to your last point as well. “Yeah you know, if the rules say you can disqualify someone, then it’s fine”. The result is the same! In both cases, a lot of votes will not count. What matters here is whether candidates deserved to be penalised. In my opinion, as well as in the opinion of anyone who has a shred of integrity, they do.
A.
Also, well said Van. It is a shame that nowadays honour and integrity do not seem to matter to anyone.
A.
It’s so easy to point fingers at the outgoing committee, to say that we didn’t handle this situation properly, but people and “the candidate”, “a candidate”, “one candidate” and “many candidates” fail to see that had the “candidates” not broken any rules this situation would not even had arisen in the first place! if i can run my campaign with integrity and sincerity, i personally don’t see why others can’t do the same, and worse, when things go wrong, blame the committee for not handling the elections properly. It’s just a simple case of bringing it upon themselves really.
“We do know it’s true, as some people have said so (namely that they only voted because they were coerced in it).”
In which case my second point knocks your argument down entirely. If we delete their first preferences, where do their second preferences go?
Also, you are confusing procedural and substantive legitimacy Aris. When people sign up to elections, they sign up to the ‘rules of the game’. Their actions can then only be judged according to these already established principles.
“Their actions can then only be judged according to these already established principles.”
I completely disagree. Blindly following rules leads to inefficiency. Just look at the ridiculous USA trials, were people receive compensations for idiotic reasons. No, judgement should be left to humans, because there will always be some loophole in any rule, ready to be exploited.
I am not saying that anyone should have the authority to completely go against set rules in an arbitrary fashion. However, some initiative should always be welcome. Basically, your problem is that we did not act in accordance to some standard procedure; I don’t think you are justifying people in breaking rules, are you? Don’t you agree that people should be penalised for their dishonesty?
I have not responded to the point on second preferences, because unfortunately I am not in the UK at the moment, hence I am not aware of the finer details of the case.
A.
“In order to clarify, for everyone to know, it is not the case that the rules could have been misinterpreted or not read. The rules were posted on the facebook group for the ISA elections. If a candidate read them and broke them, then they are clearly in the wrong; if they did not bother reading them, they will not make a very good member. Some of the rules that were broken, copy-pasted:”
8. Extremely important: No society is allowed to endorse a candidate
a. any society executive committee which endorses a particular nominee will put the well-being of their society at risk
“Truth be told, when people break the rules to such an extent, they should expect to be penalised.”
perhaps some pots really like calling kettles black
What’s the point of the last post? If it is meant to be a clever sarcastic comment, I regret to inform you that it eludes me.
A.
Write an article when there’s real news to report, not just tattle. Something particularly missing is the university’s stance on this.
I would say that if someone has blatantly broken rules that have been explained multiple times and had numerous complaints made against them and also evidence that they did indeed break the rules…. surely they should be disqualified, not just lose a random number of votes? I see what Adam has done, by trying to rank how much each thing has affected their count, but anyone who knows they are breaking rules and do so deliberately should be disqualified.
Jason, I’m with you. Adam also has a point however: disqualifying everyone who broke the rules would be somewhat undemocratic. In most cases, people who broke the rules also won their contested positions, even after votes had been removed. Clearly, they had large support, hence Adam felt that we should respect that.
A.
Vote deductions are a ridiculous and un-democratic penalty. The allegations of bias are secondary to this gross violation of democracy.
In the disputed US Senate election (Minnesota?), the cases currently going through the courts are whether it is legal, democratic, constitutional, etc to remove votes which were illegally counted (absentee ballots received after the deadline). The prevailing legal opinion is that you can not deduct a set number of ballots from a candidates total, even under the simple fptp.
As these elections were done on the YUSU voting system, they would have been conducted under AV. As Mr Seaborn pointed out, this makes vote reductions extremely difficult as second preference votes come in to question – are the x number of people whose votes were removed completely disenfranchised or will there second preferences be used? Knowing the YUSU voting system, it can’t really handle either so the rules of AV have been broken.
Therefore, the election results are invalid. Sorry.
I must say I am very amused by the comment from ’some pots really like calling kettles black’. A rather sad attempt to intimidate me, which of course means nothing whatsoever – both to me and to everyone who has heard this feeble accusation.
Let me explain.
That person suggests that I have supposedly broken the rules myself when I included Liz and Aris’ endorsements in my facebook group, mentioning their positions.
In reality, the rule that was mentioned is intented to prevent societies (especially international societies) from sending messages to their members, telling them to vote for a specific candidate.
As you can see, the rule says that no SOCIETY is allowed to support a candidate, not ‘NO INDIVIDUAL COMMITTEE MEMBER IS ALLOWED TO CAMPAIGN FOR A CANDIDATE’. In fact, there was even a disclaimer in my group saying that those two people were speaking on a personal capacity, and not on behalf of the committee. So there goes the accusation. Also, keep in mind that such endorsements are common practice in YUSU elections too, where the rule is the same.
In any case, this feeble accusation crumbles completely when you consider that I deleted Liz and Aris’ positions on my own accord even BEFORE THE ELECTIONS STARTED, to avoid any such potential controversy. In total, this appeared in my group for only a few hours.
But even if one is still to clutch at this straw, they should keep in mind that one ‘breach’ does not justify another – and not all are equal in their extent, seriousness and effect.
So, as we’ve said before my friend, a clear sky fears no lightnings. We all know very well who and what led us into this mess, and it was not me or any of my actions. You can search for dirt as much as you want, you can try to big up any trivialities you want, and I will still be chuckling at your attempt to find justification for your own wrongdoings – which included numerous accusations of coercion and harrassment.
Sometimes I am really taken aback by the persistence of some people in blindly following set regulations. “Deducting votes is undemocratic, boo hoo”. These candidates broke the democratic elections rules!!! They were unfair, indecent and lacked integrity.
Even if it were indeed undemocratic to remove votes, the decision to do so is still valid. Are you suggesting that a democratically elected official should be immune from any form of punishment when he/she is breaking the law? Of course not. If someone breaks such rules, then one deserves to be penalised. This form of punishment was the mildest possible.
A.
“The allegations of bias are secondary to this gross violation of democracy.”
I repeat, deducting votes had pretty much no effect on the final outcome. On the other hand, disqualifying the offenders would have changed the election results completely.
That said, which of the two measures would you now call ‘a gross violation of democracy’? A measure that penalises the offenders without really affecting the final outcome, or a measure that fundamentally changes the actual results by nullifying EVERY vote cast for a specific candidate?
Also, how was this decision in any way ‘biased’, given that ALL current committee members lost despite the vote reductions? Keep in mind that they would have won if offenders were disqualified instead (probably prompting far more heated accusations of bias).
Unless someone can answer these questions then all those accusations hold no ground. As Van said, it is very easy to accuse the committee for everything, but at the end of the day this mess was clearly not its own fault.
“Are you suggesting that a democratically elected official should be immune from any form of punishment when he/she is breaking the law? Of course not. If someone breaks such rules, then one deserves to be penalised. This form of punishment was the mildest possible.”
Aris, for the third time. When you delete votes, you are removing people from the democratic process when they are not the ones who have done anything wrong. Why should my vote not count because someone else has acted inappropriately?
Also, and this is the fourth time this argument has been made (lets see if you engage with it now), the fact that YUSU uses AV voting makes the whole process impossible. If you are deleting 30 first preference votes for candidate X, the second preferences must then be re-allocated. This means that which 30 people you are removing is massively important – as some people’s second preferences will have been RON, and some another candidate, say Y.
Finally, at George: democracy is about more than just an outcome – it’s about political equality. Deleting votes violated this requirement.
I must say I am very amused by the response by George:
“You can search for dirt as much as you want, you can try to big up any trivialities you want, and I will still be chuckling at your attempt to find justification for your own wrongdoings – which included numerous accusations of coercion and harrassment.”
it was nothing personal my friend (especially if you consider that I might not personally know you or the various candidates involved) the point was quite simply what you demonstrated in your post -
rules are merely words on paper: the human mind has an infinite capacity to rationalise and explain; rules generally try to suggest a black and white frame of reference, but reality more often than not eludes any attempted definition. the accused candidates, like those who were not accused per se, would probably plausibly potentially justify their actions the way you just did (ironically in spite of your own perhaps ‘feeble accusation’ too that the post was a case of someone trying to find ‘justification’) – one man’s brick wall is another man’s straw hut, so perhaps people in glass houses should not throw stones.
in the same vein, ‘democracy’ is another famous example of a word on paper. the only consensus on the definition of democracy is that there is no consensus on the definition of democracy. hence we get caught in the same trap of eternal rationalisation, and one man’s gross violation of democracy is another man’s righteous execution of justice.
on a side note – from what I have heard, “a few hours” (a bit ambiguous and, some may say, dubious; but that isn’t the point so we will leave the clear sky clear for now) is arguably the same (if not longer) amount of time some of the accused candidates spent committing their (so-called) crimes; also, yusu election rules are irrelevant to the isa elections (which some may say is where the problems arose in the first place).
before anyone puts on their sparkling halos and robes of righteousness, they might want to take note that this author is not in any way condoning or condemning any of the actions by any of the candidates, accused or not accused; this author is merely pointing out the fact that truth, like compromise, lies somewhere in the middle.
“I repeat, deducting votes had pretty much no effect on the final outcome”
Then surely it’s encouraging people to cheat in the future?
“These candidates broke the democratic elections rules!!! They were unfair, indecent and lacked integrity.”
But you still think it acceptable that they should be on the ISA Committee. Interesting.
The amount of votes influenced by cheating can rarely be accurately measured. So it is unfair on voters to attempt to second-guess how they might have voted and why. The only appropriate action should be to levy other punishments on candidates (such as bans on campaigning time, as is possible in the YUSU elections), or – if the offence is sufficiently serious – to disqualify the candidate altogether, on the grounds that they have mistreated the electorate. This would also provide encouragement for the others – cheating looks rather less attractive if one faces disqualification, rather than a deduction of votes (which might, in some circumstances, still allow a candidate to win through misconduct, particularly – without any intended reflection on the outgoing committee – if the committee is less than well-intentioned).
“Aris, for the third time. When you delete votes, you are removing people from the democratic process when they are not the ones who have done anything wrong. Why should my vote not count because someone else has acted inappropriately?”
Seriously, how can anyone be so simple? No-one is targeting you and your vote – we are targeting someone who broke the rules! Similarly, if we incarcerate a prime-minister (who say, has been found guilty of large scale fraud), his voters would be unhappy: this does not mean that he should not be punished.
For the second time, I have not engaged at all with your second point because I do not know how the second preferences issue was handled.
“But you still think it acceptable that they should be on the ISA Committee. Interesting.”
When did I ever claim they should be on the committee? My personal preference was to disqualify those who broke the rules. Other members of the current committee considered this to be undemocratic – the cheating candidates still had overwhelming support (unfortunate as this may be).
“he only appropriate action should be to levy other punishments on candidates”
Unfortunately, we were not able to do this, as the accusations came forward after voting had closed.
Finally, concerning George: as far as I am aware he did not break any rules: he had Liz’s and my own endorsement, but not under our positions in the ISA. He was not endorsed by any society. And when he realised that even these endorsements may cause controversy, he removed them immediately.
Now, the other candidates broke some very clear rules, where there is actually no possibility of misunderstanding (unless of course the said candidates are unable to comprehend written English):
1) You have a set budget for printing posters. Printing more than this is clearly breaking the rule.
2) You cannot harass people in voting for you. Carrying a laptop around campus and asking people to vote for you right there and then is a clear form of harassment.
3) Do not enter blocks without the permission of the residents to campaign/put up posters. Using cards to enter blocks and campaign clearly violates this rule.
Now, can you tell me how these statutes could have possibly been misinterpreted?
A.
S Seaborn makes the most valid point here so far – depending on which votes are deducted, due to the reallocation of 2nd preference votes, this could advantage/disadvantage other candidates. This is highly undemocratic.
Secondly, if rule breaking has taken place, candidates can be disqualified, warned verbally or formally, or the election can be held again if the problem is deemed to involve every candidate running for a certain position. Why has it taken until AFTER the election for these measures to come into effect?
Returning officer is actually a very important job, and running an election is not easy business. Too often it seems, the president is the returning officer in student elections, and due to connections with committees, other officers, “cliques” etc… there are always going to be accusations of bias or favour, rightly or as i suspect in this case, wrongly. Perhaps its time for YSU/ISA etc… to name a specific returning officer who does not hold any other position of office?
“Seriously, how can anyone be so simple? No-one is targeting you and your vote – we are targeting someone who broke the rules!”
Aris, it is you that is being simple. Even if my vote isn’t being ‘targetted’, the end result is *the same*. My vote no longer counts, therefore I have been disenfranchised. Therefore the process is undemocratic.
Regarding the second preference argument – it doesn’t matter how the ISA handled it, the very fact that the online system uses AV makes this course of action impossible. Either 2nd preferences were not taken into account, violating the electoral process (in more simple terms not respecting the preferences of the voter), or if they were taken into account, as A Politician points out, the result will be biased towards a particular candidate – because there is no basis on which to select the specific votes being deleted.
To sum up – do you not find it a little odd that no other democratic system in pretty much the world uses this as a punishment?
Samuel, you said: “When you delete votes, you are removing people from the democratic process when they are not the ones who have done anything wrong. Why should my vote not count because someone else has acted inappropriately?”
Surely, the exact same thing applies when you disqualify a candidate? In fact, disqualifying a candidate is arguably much worse, as ALL of the votes are deleted. Using that logic, penalising a candidate is effectively impossible.
‘never trust the weather’:
I do not need justification – I have nothing to lose and nothing to gain. I was only proving to you why your attempts at intimidation are false, trivial and meaningless.
I have already proven to you why the rule you suggested I broke was in fact followed to the letter. Your response (‘the human mind can rationalise’) is hardly worthy of clash – you either prove why what I said was wrong, or you do not have an argument.
Instead of giving us pseudo-philosophical analyses of reality, the human mind and democracy, I suggest you back up your crumbling case with something a bit more substantial.
“the accused candidates, like those who were not accused per se, would probably plausibly potentially justify their actions the way you just did”
Yes, they all did – it’s just that, in most cases, their explanations were not very convincing. When a rule says that you can’t print above the credit limit, when you do print above the credit limit you have broken the rule no matter how much rationalising you do.
When a rule says that you shouldn’t harass or coerce people, when a number of different students accuse you for doing just that then you have clearly broken the rule no matter how much you want to fool yourself – and this applies to the rest of the offenses.
On the other hand, when a rule says that no SOCIETY is allowed to support a candidate, then you are clearly not breaking it by having individual committee members campaigning for you. (I’ve explained to you why this rule exists in the first place.) This is why nobody ever suggested that this standard practice (you of course realise how many campaigners are members of various executive committees, right?) would warrant a penalty and this is why no penalty was ever given.
What you are doing here is just desperately clutching at straws in order to feel more comfortable with your own wrongdoings. But then again, the rules were only ‘words on a paper’ for you, so this can probably explain a lot by itself.
“especially if you consider that I might not personally know you or the various candidates involved”
You obviously do, we’ve discussed all this in person and you were clever enough to use the exact same rhetoric. You are a candidate – one of the candidates who was accused for a number of serious breaches and is now accusing everything under the sun for his/her own wrongdoings.
“But you still think it acceptable that they should be on the ISA Committee. Interesting. ”
No, he doesn’t – Aris favoured disqualification for this exact reason. However, this was not his call and he fully understands the reasons why a different decision was made.
>> Surely, the exact same thing applies when you disqualify a candidate?
No, because of the second preferences system
“he had Liz’s and my own endorsement, but not under our positions in the ISA”
This is not entirely correct. For a few hours before the elections started, your positions were mentioned, above a disclaimer saying that your were expressing your personal opinions and do not speak on behalf of your organisations.
I soon deleted this to avoid any such potential controversy – even though it is still perfectly legitimate and it is common practice in YUSU elections (where, I repeat, this rule is the same). However, some people are clearly desperate enough for some cherrypicking and are prepared to go that far in their attempt to find self-justification.
“Surely, the exact same thing applies when you disqualify a candidate? In fact, disqualifying a candidate is arguably much worse, as ALL of the votes are deleted. Using that logic, penalising a candidate is effectively impossible.”
As Chris said – at this point, the second preference system comes into play. And because you’re now removing all the first preference votes from this candidate, there is no question of bias regarding the second preferences – i.e. you don’t have to choose between *which* votes to delete.
What has gone wrong here, is that the ISA executive committee have not truly understood how the AV electoral process work (the theory of social choice), which is probably not your fault. That said, it’s time you acknowledged this, and moved on by re-running the elections.
Samuel, I think you may have a point there. I will make sure I ask the committee about this – it may turn out that the margins were large enough so that even that would not have made a difference.
What I think has happened is that the ISA wanted to avoid the bad press that the GSA received. In doing so they have completely misunderstood what the GSA’s problems were: the election rules were rubbish but they were adhered to and as a result, candidates were disqualified.
The ISA hoped to avoid a ‘GSA type mess’ by not handing out disqualifications (despite plenty of evidence which seems like they were necessary) but instead they have torn up the electoral rule book and brought even worse press upon themselves.
To repeat Sam Seaborn’s question, can we have an answer of how the issue of second preference votes was dealt with when deducting votes?
Also, are the ISA election rules and constitution available anywhere?
george, i can assure you that i am not a candidate and was not actually involved in the election or in a discussion with you, neither am i posting pretending to be another person, i am just very amused (i believe the appropriate term for my reaction was ‘lol’). so unless my expression of my own opinion is my “wrongdoing”, i think you might just be making the very same hasty judgements i was trying to suggest nobody can make with 100% confidence. trust me, i am not trying to blatantly lie about my identity in some desperate conspiratorial attempt to throw you off my trail, i just thought you might like to know that you’re probably mis-directing your annoyance/anger at some innocent (or not-so-innocent-of-other-crimes) candidate.
fact is, if you took my post a little less personally while you fumed over your keyboard, you might just have avoided missing my point completely.
“Surely, the exact same thing applies when you disqualify a candidate? In fact, disqualifying a candidate is arguably much worse, as ALL of the votes are deleted. Using that logic, penalising a candidate is effectively impossible.”
Y’know George, your self righteous pontificating would a lot less annoying if you actually understood what you’re talking about. Seriously, you’ve said you’re not running in the by-elections, so just let it go; its like the last set of elections again, you’re starting to sound more than a little bitter….
‘never trust the weather’/'lol’:
You are right, I am quite bitter by all this – and I’ve never tried to hide it. In fact, you will find that most committee members have very similar feelings. (That aside, I admit to a rather obvious personality flaw – I am very argumentative, especially about things I care about.) You see, some of us have actually worked quite hard for this association, and it pains us to see its reputation tarnished in this way. If people did not try to blame us for their own mistakes, then my ’self-righteous pontification’ would have no reason to exist.
OK, pointing fingers and throwing accusations and wishy-washy terms such as “undemocratic” does not help at all. Why don’t you present us with a better solution?
Also, please take the trouble to read through all comments before contributing your own: we could not formally warn candidates, nor could we limit their campaigning time, because the complaints were launched after the voting period was over! Keeping this in mind, why don’t you kindly advise us what we should have done, in order to be democratic and fair to everyone?
A.
I’d re-run the elections for the controversial positions.
Chris, we are doing this for some positions. But then, the guilty parties are not being punished in any way. Don’t you think this is unfair? In fact, in the case of presidency, George is not even re-running. With no other candidates confirmed, it seems Chan will be running uncontested. How is this fair? Don’t you think that someone who has violated clearly set rules ought to be penalised?
A.
The important thing here isn’t about punishing people, it’s about making sure the positions of the ISA committee are democratically elected.
I think it’s a shame George isn’t going to re-run (I quite like him), but that’s a personal decision to make.
The problem is that the elections were so marred in controversy (leading to this decision) and the decision itself is being attacked, Tobias and Samuel make very good points imo, I think the only good way to resolve the situation is to start afresh with a new round of elections instead of trying to fix what was obviously a flawed first round.
No Chris, the goal is not to have a democratically elected committee – it’s to have a committee that is indeed democratically elected, but composed of decent members. Democracy does not always ensure good leaders; look at Berlusconi and Hitler.
We can’t say “well, these guys cheated, but they still have support, so we’ll just go with it”. They deserve to be penalised. In my opinion, they are unfit to run the association.
A.
“it’s to have a committee that is indeed democratically elected, but composed of decent members.”
The flaw in this statement is this: you and I have very different conceptions of what ‘decent’ means. And I bet both our definitions differ from Tobias’.
I’m sure the electoral commission would be able to offer some sound advice over how to deal with the issues raised here. Similarly i’m sure the NUS rules and regs people would be able to offer an opinion on how to best handle the situation.
Pressed enter to quickly.
The rest of this post should have then said that because of this difference, the only thing an election is able to do (and therefore what we can expect from it) is to ensure a democratic choice. Everything else is up to the voters.
The problem is that’s not how democracy works. The BNP got in through perfectly democratic means for example – the fact that it happened is not because democracy failed, but because other things did.
Without trying to cause problems… I can see where Samuel and Chris are coming from.
If a decision was taken to remove votes, that’s a bit odd but not a real problem; if a number of votes were deducted before the results were seen, it’s not a massive deal. But with the results seen first, the people choosing a number of votes to be taken away are choosing who wins the election. Even if they do it fairly, and I don’t doubt that they did, people will see a problem with it! And if people are blatantly breaking rules, they should not be allowed to become Officers!
Absolutely Chris – but you need to distinguish between “democracy”, which might very well include things like ‘reasoned public debate’ and ‘freedom of speech’, and an “election” which in this case is nothing more than a method of aggregation.
In this example, the ISA have not understood the complexities of the latter – which is why deleting votes should not happen.
” “But you still think it acceptable that they should be on the ISA Committee. Interesting.”
When did I ever claim they should be on the committee? My personal preference was to disqualify those who broke the rules. Other members of the current committee considered this to be undemocratic – the cheating candidates still had overwhelming support (unfortunate as this may be).”
So if you don’t agree with the decision to deduct votes, why on earth are you defending it, Aris? Why aren’t you demanding that the offending candidates be disqualified?
“No Chris, the goal is not to have a democratically elected committee – it’s to have a committee that is indeed democratically elected, but composed of decent members.”
Well, by your own mouth, you don’t seem to think that the current members are decent, so you seem to be in a lose-lose position there.
Seriously, just do the whole lot again.
“If a decision was taken to remove votes, that’s a bit odd but not a real problem; if a number of votes were deducted before the results were seen, it’s not a massive deal.”
Wrong. Have a look at mine and Tobias’ posts above Jason, and you’ll see why you can’t just delete votes in a preferential voting system.
Samuel, there can be no debate over the definition of the word decency. Cheating is indecent, by definition. I do not understand how anyone can argue for the opposite.
Not everything should be left to the voters. If this were the case, the Southern USA states would still have slavery and Britain would probably have the death penalty. In this case, when a candidate has broken the law/regulations (and done so for selfish reasons, not for the greater good or anything noble), no matter what support he/she may have, they should be penalised.
As I have stated, I was opposed to this solution; I am not defending the solution per se, but I am defending Adam, and explaining how he reached this solution. I did demand the immediate disqualification of the candidates who breached the elections rules, but most committee members, including Adam, voted against it. I still think these candidates should have been disqualified; what I am arguing is that this was not a case of bias – like I’ve said, if it were indeed a case of Adam wanting to promote specific candidates, he would have gone with disqualification.
And yes, I do not think that all current committee members are decent; it is indeed a loss, but I can do nothing about it, can I?
A.
“Samuel, there can be no debate over the definition of the word decency. Cheating is indecent, by definition. I do not understand how anyone can argue for the opposite.”
What a ridiculous claim. I consider reciprocity a factor in decency, do you? Even if you do, I doubt we’d agree on the same level.
And I agree that not everything should be left to the voters (which is why the US, for example, has a strong judiciary branch). That said, I’m pretty certain that electing candidates in a representative democracy should be!
Reciprocity is a rather vague term – I cannot tell you whether I agree, unless you explain exactly what you mean by it. I did not mean to say that the definition of the word decent is set and absolute in any case, I am sorry for the misunderstanding. I was limiting the use for the word in this specific case.
Not even electing candidates is always left to the public – in many countries, if one has a criminal record, one cannot stand for elections, even if the public wants him/her to represent them.
A.
If the term is not “set”, then by definition we will have different conceptions of it. Hence your argument that a democratic system must be set up to ensure it cannot logically follow.
Regarding criminals: The laws (case based or constitutional) that have been passed to prevent these candidates from standing will have been passed by a democratically elected chamber, or even by referendum in some cases. Therefore, in this sense, it is public who have decided it.
And regarding reciprocity – the fact that it is vague is exactly my point!
I do agree with Aris, our definitions may all be different, but if it comes to cheating I’m pretty sure that all of us classify it as not decent…
Moreover, there is a dilemma considering reopening elections as well…
If we have them then:
1. All the efforts *decent* candidates went through seem to have been in vain.
2. There will be no committee to welcome the new international students next year when it will be needed the most and when it has to show how strong and helpful it can be…
3. Just all be honest, how many people are voting in by-elections? No matter if it’s JCRC or YUSU elections only very few people are bothered enough to vote… What will we do though if that happens in our reopened elections…? Will that be very democratic if only the minority votes…? I’m not so sure…..
That’s why Adam wasn’t keen on having new elections…
Also, even though I’d rather have all cheats disqualified as well, after saying my opinion to Adam, I left him to it! You all need to understand that we (all the committee members) after having worked with Adam and seen him put his heart and soul into the ISA, we do trust him!!! Even if we don’t agree completely with the decision he made, we do understand where he’s coming from and we’ll stand behind him no matter what!
If you have a closer look at the complaints you’ll see that none of the committee members accuses Adam of being biased! We all lost although Adam said many times that continuity is the most important to him and that he’d love to see us running the future ISA committee! But it didn’t stop him from taking a decision which wasn’t in our favour, and we do accept this!
So if people who know Adam do trust him so much to do what is right, I don’t think that anyone who doesn’t know him is allowed to make these accusations! I’m completely appaled by this article to be honest!
Now, of all the proposed solutions, none seems perfect and all of them seem to violate democracy in some way or another… So it’s difficult to choose what’s right and what’s wrong, hence why the executive committe spent 5 days discussing the matter…
However, I do see that the 2nd votes thing is a problem and to be honest, I have to admit that I never thought of it although it’s obvious…
Maybe now the only option will be to reopen the elections anyway with all its cosequences…? I don’t know, it’s not up to me to judge on this!
What I do know though is that I am so disappointed and sadend that people didn’t read the rules properly and cheated, ruinning everything the committee was working on for the last two years…. Just imagine how horrible Adam has to feel anyway because of the whole situation!!! Do you really think that he needs such wrong accusations?? There is a problem with the decision that’s clear, but there is a much bigger problem with this article to be fair!!!
Did the deductions change the outcome of the election, or just change the margins between candidates?
If the post-deduction result meant that a different candidate topped the poll, the committee have effectively rigged the election by deciding how many votes to drop.
@ Aris:
“I did not mean to say that the definition of the word decent is set and absolute in any case”
Ummm you also said:
“there can be no debate over the definition of the word decency”
Sounds like you did mean to say it…
“Therefore, in this sense, it is public who have decided it.”
Similarly, the past committee was elected by the public. None of us has been no-confidenced, thus the public was content with how we ran the ISA. As such, any decision we made was democratic. People voted for me because they know roughly what I advocate and what my opinions are. If I act on these opinions, I am acting on behalf of those who voted for me.
Mr Ripley, last time I checked, your vocabulary and writing style were far more sophisticated. In addition, the real Ripley pays more attention to details: you obviously just scanned my text, trying to find a clever way to portray me as being inconsistent. Read again:
“I was limiting the use for the word in this specific case.” Yes, I did saty that there can be no debate over the definition of the word decency… but I only meant in respect to this particular instance. As Daria said, when one cheats (for selfish reasons), then one is indecent. And yes, I believe this to be undebatable.
A. Politician, only the outcome in one position was changed. I am certain however that the committee decided the number of votes to be deducted before investigating the effects. As such, the elections were not rigged – we did not know who was going to win after the measure was taken.
And finally, I don’t appreciate how everyone has attacked Adam and the past committee, but no-one has accused the cheating candidates! If I were running Nouse, I would have them and their offenses named. Doesn’t the public deserve to know who cheated? I would not want to vote for a corrupt candidate in the future. How can all of you be so tolerant towards indecent persons who clearly lack integrity?
A.
“And finally, I don’t appreciate how everyone has attacked Adam and the past committee, but no-one has accused the cheating candidates!”
My sentiments exactly, Aris. That’s the thing, everyone’s been busy attacking the previous committee, but they fail to neglect the fact that THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO CHEATED. Shouldn’t that be the more pressing issue? THIS is the root of the problem, for they were the ones who created this entire mess in the whole place!
“And finally, I don’t appreciate how everyone has attacked Adam and the past committee, but no-one has accused the cheating candidates!”
Maybe because, had Malik and the rest of the committee taken more punitive action, the cheating candidates would have been disqualified, rather than becoming the current committee? There doesn’t seem much point attacking the candidates – after all, they had all their fraudulently gained votes removed, so now they’re entirely innocent, right?
In any case, I suppose it’s bad form to attack the new ISA committee.
Rules are made to be broken. Get over it. More important things goin on in the world.
This forum is dominated by the committee.. does anyone else in the real world actually care about this stuff?
I care – the ISA looks after several thousand international students and to have its overly massive budget controlled by cheaters is a REALLY bad idea. MYOB is wrong too – rules are NOT made to be broken!
Also, is there anyone outside the ISA who can force them to have another election?
yep – the University Registrar can.
Why the censorship?
Note by a moderator: People post anonymously on here for a reason, it’s not particularly fair to allow people to “out” them, especially when you’re doing the same
CANNONBALL!
You are welcome to reveal my identity. Just thought I would get all West-Wing with the best of them. My point was that Samuel Norman Seaborn seems very clued up when it comes to having elections overturned here at York, something that is easily explained once you figure out who Sam really is. Whilst his points in this thread are pretty much spot-on, it is rather galling when you know where they are coming from.
http://www.nouse.co.uk/2008/11/25/graduate-student-association-in-%e2%80%98chaos%e2%80%99/
“rather galling when you know who they are coming from” – if I have been involved in getting re-runs of elections before, how exactly is that galling? Surely it just shows a commitment to making sure we have a fair and accurate democratic processes on campus? You make that point yourself when you say my points have been “spot on”….
Depends on your motivations for doing so Sam
Easy to preach one thing but think and do another Sam
I know Samuel Norman Seaborn very well, judging by the standard of his posts, I don’t think anyone would be surprised to learn that he is Brick, an essential member of my news team.
Why don’t you enlighten us by revealing who you are Sam? I am sorry if I’m being slow here, but I have no clue.
A.
I’m not the focus of this article – the ISA election process is.
I am not the focus either, but I have no problem revealing my identity. Why don’t you do the same?
A.
*oooh there’s a bandwagon, let’s jump on it*
The only reason you’re pressing the issue, Aris, is because you’ve lost the debate on whether deleting votes can ever be a democratic device to use in an election that uses preferential voting.
Samuel Norman Seaborn is so wise. Like a minature Buddha, covered in hair.
But Mr Moderator, Burgundy just revealed that Seaborn was like a Buddha with hair, surely we all know who he is now? How did that get past you Mr Moderator.
I for one don’t care if “Samuel Norman Seaborn” is a full-sized Buddha – I still think it’s inappropriate to delete votes, because you can’t adequately quantify the number that have been affected by cheating. And this solution opens the door for the new committee (who, you recall, were the ones cheating in this election) to engage in underhanded behaviour in the next election. A fresh election should be called.
Also, Aris – I still don’t understand why you are defending a decision you did not agree with and which casts the ISA into disrepute. Especially since you also have made it clear that you do not think the disreputable new committee are even decent people.
Samuel is reading these comments, and you guys should be ashamed of yourself as he’s now in a glass cage of emotion!!!
“The only reason you’re pressing the issue, Aris, is because you’ve lost the debate on whether deleting votes can ever be a democratic device to use in an election that uses preferential voting.”
Not at all. I am only building on previous comments, challenging your motive for criticising the committee decision.
Anon, not everyone in the new committee is indecent; and hopefully, a good president will be elected next term (that is, one who does not cheat!)
For the second time, I am not defending the decision exactly. I am defending Adam, by saying that in any case, he was not biased. Plus, I am saying that the decision was not the best possible, but that’s not because it was not democratic, but because it was not punitive enough. My solution would be considered even less democratic than this one.
However, new elections are the worst option, as the guilty parties are not penalised at all.
A.
They’re not exactly being penalised at the moment, are they? On the contrary, they have, at best, lost only that which they gained by cheating (presuming that by some chance Malik knew exactly why everyone voted the way they did and twiddled the votes accordingly). To re-run elections – with the understanding that punishment for breaking the rules would be deduction of campaigning time or barring from the election altogether – would be fair – it would punish the cheats by preventing them holding positions which they might have gained through cheating, and allow a clean slate – with the understanding that proper penalties would be levied against those who break the rules in future. If new elections don’t punish the current cheats sufficiently for you – that’s not the end of the world, even if they get in they have still done so through honest and legitimate tactics, and the electorate get to cast their votes without being unduly pressured.
What will happen otherwise? Can you be sure that the presidential candidates won’t try their luck – playing the system to see if they can get more votes through unscrupulous means than will be deducted? Can you trust the new committee to behave scrupulously if such a matter emerges? Are International students likely to bother much with the ISA if bullying and cheating become the standard methods of election campaigning – and, if so, is the concept of an ISA Committee likely to survive? I’m not predicting the Four Horsemen, but fraud does have a tendency to become endemic if not nipped in the bud, and this decision – and you are defending the making of a decision that takes a relaxed view of such behaviour, even if you do not necessarily agree with it – will only encourage it.
(Also, as the mysterious Mr Seaborn pointed out, revoking the candidature of the cheats – I presume that’s your ideal solution – would allow second preference votes to be cast – so both democratic and punitive. Unlike the current solution, where there is a real question mark hanging over the nature of the deductions, and how second preferences were accounted).
Is Anon merely Samual Norman once again?
Anon, I agree with your reasoning, which is why I was against the enacted solution. I agree you can criticise the penalty for the reasons you outline, but not because it is undemocratic.
A sidenote though: re-running the elections is not sufficient punishment either. Those who cheated can still win in the future, as the effect their cheating moves had still lasts. The fact that some persons campaigned within blocks for example increases their publicity, and they will still enjoy this publicity next term (although granted, they will not gain the votes of fresher).
A.
‘Those who cheated can still win in the future’
Not necessarily. If someone is DQd in an election which causes a by-election, convention states that they are still DQd in the by-election.
This is what the Uni Registrar and GSA resturning officer implemented for the final set of GSA by-elections, meaning Rui and Luke were not allowed to stand.
Tobias, this would be a good solution. I think it would be ideal disqualifying some candidates and then re-running the elections – what I oppose is just running the elections again without any disqualifications or other forms of penalty.
A.
Yes it would be the ideal solution IF the candidates had been DQd in the first place. Now if the elections are decided to be re-run the ISA would have to ‘pick’ which candidates to DQ from the previous election in order to prevent them from standing in the by-elections. I know its a bit picky but you can see how that would play in the media…
To be honest, I think the only fair way is to completely re-run the elections (and from what I hear, the Uni is pushing/forcing for that outcome.)
Now that we’ve all agreed that the best thing is to re-run the elections, I’m off to campaign for the California 47th…
You best find me a new Deputy first…
Sometimes there are worse things than being dead.
People should have voted for me to be ISA President.
it’s the summer holidays. let it go guys. let it go.
Let it go….
Easy to say…
When Adam will try to look for a job and they type into google “Adam Malik ISA president York University” after reading his CV, guess what article comes up…?
Why do you think so many committee members are writting on this forum defending Adam?
There is a problem with the elections and something has to be done about it, fair enough…
But the article causes another problem and that is how it destroys Adam’s good reputation after all he’s done for the ISA!
I don’t know what other people defending Adam on this forum think, but my issue is right now with this article only!
Nouse instead of raising an existing issue saying that there is a problem with the ISA elections as people cheated and the decision made isn’t fully satisfying, they attacked Adam personally with false accusations! The article is neither well researched, neither well written but as long as it is online the reputation of a very *decent* individual is at stake!! Unfairly!
Honestly, Nouse, I don’t understand how a newspaper with such a good reputation as yours can even attempt to write sensationalist articles like that… It’s poor journalism and I wish you would explain yourself!
The debate isn’t about if Adam’s decision was right or wrong anymore… I trust the University and Adam to find a right way out of this…
It’s rather about the fairness of this article, which for now, I really can’t see……
Oh Daria, don’t tell me you’re another one of those people that think elected offices are just CV-boosters that should entail happiness and success for those lucky enough to hold them?
With great power comes great responsibility, blah blah, and while York Uni ISA Prez isn’t really that ‘great’, Malik and his other elected contemporaries need to wise up to the fact that at York, with three sets of journalists who want to make the most of their Uni opportunities (as Malik is patently doing – I’m sure he’s not as altruistic as you make out), you need to behave intelligently in your elected office. Malik screwed up, played with some numbers he shouldn’t have, and now is paying the price.
Too many ‘campus politicians’ think they are untouchable, going round doing whatever they like and abusing their position, and then go crying to others when the press catch up with them.
If Adam (and other campus figures) want to avoid potential bad press, they should resign from their roles, stick their heads back in their textbooks, and live Uni like te majority of us.
Oh and read the article again – Nouse doesn’t make any accusations, Foy and Co are too clever for that. They’ve got candidates to throw the shit at Adam. So you can’t really take it out on the paper. You could, of course, find the ISA leak, get a blog and do some CV-destroying of your own…
I am sorry, but where did I mention that I think its just a CV-booster?
In my opinion, running for positions is almost only about trying to make a change to uni-life, of helping people out and improving the quality of people’s uni-experience! The other bit consists of learning and getting some great experience in working with different people out of different backgrounds! The fact that it can be used on your CV to prove that you already had some experience with for instance leading groups is just an add to it… I’d despise anyone who would run for a position only to boost their CV up!
Just to make that clear!
I have a question to you though…. Have you ever worked with Adam? Have you ever seen how he’s handling problems?
If yes – fair enough if you have the opinion you’ve got.
But if no – how can you only judge him like that and put him in the same draw as other ‘campus politicians’ who abused of their roles?
Adam is a very altruistic person in my eyes and I’m not trying to make out anything…
I’m sure many ISA committe members and other people who worked long enough with him would back me up on that!
I would understand as well if Adam would be paying the price for a mistake! I don’t think the press should be silent about it! But instead of pointing out the fact that Adam took a bad decision, they pictured him as an untrustworthy person, which he really wasn’t! Doing a bad job in this case and being biaised are two different things….
Also the candidates who are accusing him are not even named… The article is only a bunch of rumours put together to make a sensation out of it! This is what I’m so disappointed about! I know Foy and I know what an ambitious and excellent writer he can be! However, articles like this are much below his level and I’m asking myself why this had to be published…..
Chris, your attitude towards this is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophesy. The more you indiscriminately denounce everyone as an ambitious CV-booster, the more likely you are to discourage those who actually care from trying to get involved.
Indiscrimately denounce? No George, I said, and continue to believe, that those who hold elected offices should expect to be held to account by the campus press. And I don’t agree with you at all – my attitude (for what it’s worth) will only discourage those who only want the fame and fortune. Those who ‘actually care’ and are only going to do good things in office (i.e not rig elections) should have no fear.
Daria – Nouse looks to have pointed out the mistake he made. ‘Picturing him as an untrustworthy person’, i’m afriad, is your (and others’) subjective reading of the facts presented. I notice you don’t contend the accusations, just the ‘picturing’. Unfortunately, that’s just down to the impression that the reader gets from the story (and, it mustbe said, the comments).
I’m sure Nouse wanted to publish the names of the accusers, but unfortunately journalism law exists to protect sources, and the YUSU censors probably wouldnt let it go through anyway.
Look, if Malik is totally innocent, he’ll either force an apology from Nouse, or get Vision to run a counter-story. If he knows he’s doe something he shouldn’t, he’ll keep quiet while it blows over.
Let’s see, eh?
I sense bias in Daria’s arguments. Still cannot believe people are still commenting on this. Tis summer. Go out be jolly
Chris, being held to account is very different from being slandered. I think it can be easily understood that the latter does discourage people from trying to get involved.
Also, I don’t know how familiar you are with the ISA, but you can rest assured that there is not much fame and certainly no fortune associated with being its president.
Let us keep in mind that we are talking about a volunteer who, over the last year, has dedicated countless hours to this role, often at the great expense of his own degree. We are talking about an extremely honest and open individual who has done more for the ISA than any other previous president – including securing it a sabbatical position. This is his reward: an attempt at character assassination, courtesy of those who messed up the elections in the first place.
Finally, it is rather unfair to say that the accusations have not been contended so far. With more than a hundred comments in this thread, I would say that everything surrounding this issue has been overanalysed.
“Look, if Malik is totally innocent, he’ll either force an apology from Nouse, or get Vision to run a counter-story. If he knows he’s doe something he shouldn’t, he’ll keep quiet while it blows over.”
There are more options available – but we’ll have to wait until October. For now, let us do what MYOB suggests and just enjoy the summer.
George, of course by ‘being slandered’ you mean the verbal defamation of Adam by the sources featured in the story, right?
Because if you meant defamation by Nouse, that would be ‘libel’.
Let’s not start using powerful words we don’t understand, eh? That’s not going to help anyone, whatever you have in mind for October.
“George, of course by ‘being slandered’ you mean the verbal defamation of Adam by the sources featured in the story, right?”
Yes.
“Because if you meant defamation by Nouse, that would be libel.”
Thanks for the tip, but that’s why I didn’t say ‘libel’. Here’s what I actually said: ‘an attempt at character assassination, courtesy of those who messed up the elections in the first place.’
“Let’s not start using powerful words we don’t understand, eh?”
How about not trying to be sarcastic when based on the ridiculous assumption that people mean whatever suits your argument, eh?
“That’s not going to help anyone, whatever you have in mind for October.”
I don’t have anything in mind for October – I am outta this for good and I’ve said that from the beginning in no uncertain terms. I do know, however, that this is not the end of the story, so we can just be patient and see how it plays out. In the meantime, enjoy the holidays.
“Malik screwed up”.
Actually, no he did not. If only people did not lack the elementary values of decency, honesty and fair play, this whole thing would have been avoided.
It is these candidates (the ones who broke the rules) who should pay the price. Nouse should run an article naming them and accusing them, causing public ridicule. This is what they deserve. How come none of them are mentioned in the article? Surely, a good newspaper would name political candidates who violate the election rules… Don’t people deserve to know who was honest and who was not (given that there will be a re-election next term, the voters should know which candidates are decent!)
A.
Aris,
I have heard that Malik insisted that no candidates were named as having cheated or having points deducted. Obviously you disagree.
Maybe “Malik Screwed up”?
Or maybe he was just kinder than they were.
MYOB: “I sense bias in Daria’s arguments.”
Could you be more precise please? What exactly is biased in my arguments?
Jed, I have not heard this rumour before. Even if it were true, I am sure that Adam does not approve this article either. Obviously, Nouse’s task is not to obey Adam, thus they could (and should) have named the candidates. I still urge them to do so. If an MP broke rules, would you not like to know who it is?
A.
It’s not a rumour, it’s mentioned in the article.
Oops, my mistake. Still, the point holds.
A.