OUSA president "shocked" at disqualification

Mate, you're killing me here. The rules were too difficult for the returning officer to understand or to enforce - so they obviously need to be tightened just a little bit. Of course the rules to you seem simple but that's because you have been involved with OUSA longer than a couple dozen students put together :)
Just update the rules and make them clearer so that not every election has to go to an independent party. Simple stuff that I am sure even the association can handle.

1) The rules don't need 'fixed' - it is now in concrete that a computer is a polling-booth. As if a 12 year old would not have known this anyway...
OUSA can not create a set of rules that cover every single situation that will arise. It has a set of reasonably clear rules that Jo stepped well outside of.
2) Jo was advised there was an appeal, the only mistake made was that she was advised there was 1 appeal not 2. Not good practice, but boo hoo it's not remotely grounds to question the disqualification.
3) And as I've said many times, if the other candidate broke the rules to the same extent he too should be disqualified or a new election.

I think there are grounds for OUSA to tidy up their rules and procedures - and to apologise to Jo for not advising her of the appeal - admitted as an "oversight" by the OUSA President.
If all the facts are correct, then neither side was perfect and in OUSAs case they can amend their rules to make them watertight for following elections. It only makes sense.
The new OUSA president has also admitted breaking the 20m rule - will you be filing a motion at the next SGM to get him to explain this or to resign?

Thanks for the permission there, Baxter!
I'm over the moon Jo won't get in (although it would have been hilarious). The fact remains that OUSA should have clarified the rules earlier, and left themselves open to something like this. It was ambiguous enough that the Returning Officer reached a completely different conclusion to the arbitrator, and the fact remains that OUSA admits they will need to update the rules.
We all know what Jo did was against the spirit and intent of the rules, but the phrase "polling booth" is certainly open to interpretation - in my opinion, this is a simple matter of outdated terminology.

Lucy can say what she likes - it does not change the interpretation that a computer logged into the voting site IS a polling-booth - and a 12 year old would have known this...
The rules are not there to be interpreted by candidates as they like. If a candidate tries to gain votes by pushing the limits of the rules, it's purely their own risk if they push past the limits and break the rules.
And yes, Jo has given up her claim on presidency btw.

Baxter, Lucy commented that OUSA admitted the rules about polling booths should have been clearer and tidied up. And hey, it'll be good for the association to do something in the new year won't it :)

Come on, rules are not there to be interpreted by candidates as they like.
If a candidate tries to gain votes by pushing the limits of the rules, it's purely their own risk if they push past the limits and break the rules. End of story.
And the rules don't have to be tightened up as a result if this at all - we now have the arbitrator's decision stating that rules about campaigning near polling-booths also includes computers being used for voting (as if this wasn't obvious to people over 12 years old anyway).

Lucy, you are a fountain of knowledge aren't ya? Good stuff! I suspected the rules hadn't been amended for the computerised voting - but that isn't to say that OUSA are rubbish Baxter, just strangly slow on the uptake! :)
It seems from all this, which you admit, that Jo broke the rules as she didn't understand them, or "interpreted" them incorrectly. This means that the rules are not as tight as they should be, so OUSA should act on this right away and get it right.
The same for the assumptions about the keg party by the arbitrator..which Lucy bought up. That could cast doubts over the accuracy over the spending costs, I'm really interested to see if Jo has fought back yet.
Is this case still continuing? Anybody know?

Actually, OUSA has admitted that the rules around polling booths should have been cleared up after the move online, which wasn't done. The Returning Officer's verdict was that only computers set up by OUSA especially for the purpose of allowing people to vote count as "polling booths". This is a fair definition which has certain problems - and defining a polling booth as any computer currently on the OUSA voting pages is also a fair definition (and probably more in line with the spirit of the rules), with its own set of problems. Perhaps some new terminology is required.
The rules do need to be clarified, and probably will be shortly, but defining polling booths as computers logged onto the voting system would require very nuanced rules - in this day and age, especially with a wireless campus and students everywhere with laptops, it would be incredibly easy to accidently campaign within 20m.

Good to see trying to you reintroduce the "OUSA is rubbish" idea back into the discussion. But you're wrong again - the election rules have changed since the introduction of electronic voting.

Naturally candidates are still not allowed to campaign in a polling-booth, or indeed watch people as they vote (eg potential intimidation). And nor should they whether it be traditional booths or electronic.

The source of this year's problems was not the rules, but an interpretation of them by some people that a computer logged into the voting site is not a polling-booth. I would have though it was obvious to a 12 year old that such a computer is a polling-booth...

Since it is now abundantly clear that it is, and that campaigning where ever people are voting is unacceptable, I doubt we'll have this problem again.

Oh, and of course Jo said she didn't overspend - her idea of what should be included as a voting expense was different to the arbitrator's. The arbitrator found that the total spent on things that helped her get votes was indeed above the limit.

I think the scary thing is that possibly OUSA was not ready for this, as mentioned above - they haven't changed their election policy despite the move to computerised voting. Furthermore, nobody knows when the "illegal" votes were cast or how many there were.
How this can provide the smoking gun for disqualification is beyond me, as it seems so flimsy.
Baxter - you'll know this, but I read in Jo's story that she said she had proof she didn't overspend - what did the arbitrator say in relation to this?
Actually is this case still continuing? I haven't heard much more in the media about it. Has Jo given up?

I'm curious where you got the 15 vote figure from - I can't find it in any of the ODT coverage.
In John Gibb's Sept 10 article, "OUSA president fights dumping" the arbitrators decision is summarised as follows: "The most straightforward way to remedy the situation would have been to take away the votes that Miss Moore had obtained by the use of her polling stations, but it was not known how many electors had voted for her on her machines or how many laptops were used, he said."
It seems that the laptops were used at a station set up outside Moore's house, at Halls and at the infamous party. I would be surprised if that only resulted in 15 students casting their votes (of course, not all of these would necessarily have been for Jo, but this clearly breaks the spirit and intent of the rules around polling booths).
I'm of the opinion that OUSA got themselves into an unnecessarily difficult position by not updating the election rules when they moved to online voting, and I would have liked to see a by-election as it is impossible to ascertain whether Moore's laptop antics did indeed influence the vote enough to take her into first position when she otherwise wouldn't have been. However, given the constitution as it stands, the actions taken by everyone subsequent to the appeal to the Returning Officer's decision are all perfectly legit and acceptable from a constitutional point of view.

If you'd read the arbitrator's report you'd be aware that she compromised potentially many more votes than 15.
Further, you seem to ignore that she also blew the spending limit - reason in itself for disqualification. What's illogical about disqualifying someone for over-spending?

This is actually the one point I'm not sure the arbitrator got right (not that I'm saying he didn't - I'm just not convinced the evidence is there). The arbitrator's report definitely makes some assumptions about how much the party cost, and in particular how many kegs of beer were there. I seem to recall he thought there could be up to six, but absolutely no one who was there has suggested a figure anywhere near that high.
I wouldn't be surprised if Moore did break the spending limit, but based on the evidence I'm not sure we can say with confidence that she did.

I'm from a university in the North Island and just came across these posts. Something that no-one seemed to raise was the fact that only 15 votes were compromised ... a fact which wouldn't have changed the election as she had a 122 vote winning margin. Subtract those 15 votes and she still would have won the election by a substantial margin.
As Baxter repeated in different ways several times on his posts "If you'd actually read the rules you'd know that breaches that would not have changed the result of the election are not generally actioned."
In that case, why was this breach actioned, as it would not have changed the election result?

1) The arbitrator found that she overspent. I've dealt with him before, and he wouldn't have made that call unless it was absolute that she did. Case closed. She should be disqualified for this alone.
2) It seems some of Edwin's alleged offending around the polling booths is indeed similar - but importantly, on a lesser scale. Certainly not good practice (and I'm not defending it), but not in the same league as Jo's. He wasn't bribing them with drinks, and he wasn't watching over their screens as they voted. And he did not overspend the maximum allowed amount.
The difference is that his alleged cheating probably would not have made any difference to the result, and thus would have got no penalty from the arbitrator. Not that that makes it acceptable (and if it were up to me I'd penalise some votes for each incidence), but, as Lucy says no one made a complaint over it.
As I've said, I do agree that if he broke the rules to the same extent he should also be disqualified, resulting in either a new election or the 3rd place getter becoming the winner.
3) If you had a serious complaint that was allegedly ignored all those years ago, it is a complete mystery why you didn't take it to the arbitrator, or at least put it in writing. If you choose not to make an official complaint, you have nothing to whinge about. :roll:
4) PS - Something else we may agree on - STV would have been good for these elections, as the votes of people who voted for a disqualified candidate could be re-allocated to their second choice candidate (rather than effectively being chucked in the bin).

Thanks Lucy, all interesting points. I wonder if there is a precedent for all this?
Baxter, we have at least one poor sucker reading all this mate! It seems neither of us know if she overspent. Jo says she didn't and I don't know what the ruling was on that.
BTW when I ran for OUSA in my first year at Uni I only missed out by 45 votes ;) In subsequent times when I helped run campaigns I only lost 1 out of 7-8 campaigns. So that kind of blows my lack of votes theory out of the water bro.
And my complaints weren't like Josh's ones. Remember I went against his scurrilous campaign to remove a President. He had a history of not having hard fact to back up his annoyance with OUSA - while I was simply thought of by some of the OUSA staff as anti OUSA... which isn't true.

1) Jo was guilty of breaking more than the 20 meter rule. As I said, this is simply not comparable to technical breaches of people eating their lunch near a booth in our day. She set up her own booths and looked at what people were voting for while they voted. If you don't know why that's wrong you're a lost cause.

Oh, and it seems she also over-spent the maximum allowed. Are you also advocating that this is acceptable without penalty?

2) OUSA staff should indeed tell candidates with complaints to go away (as you, and all candidates smart enough to read the rules, are aware all complaints must go to the returning officer and are nothing to do with the staff). What was your complaint that the returning officer told you to [go away]? I'd wager it was a silly vexatious complaint like Josh's. Or indeed your complaint didn't remotely account for the vast difference between your votes and the winner's (ie wouldn't have made a difference to the result). Either way they don't have to investigate insignificant complaints.

Please note your comparison is largely irrelevant anyway - The Returning Officer let Jo off and didn't recommend disqualification. That was at the next level up, ie the independent Arbitrator. This arbitrator is in place so exactly what you've claimed can not happen - eg if you actually had had a serious complaint you could have lodged it with him.

3) I can't be sure the 2nd place getter didn't break the rules; and as I said if he did to the same extent - then I agree their should probably be a new election. However, there were no complains against him on the scale of Jo's offending (ie that would have changed the result) if indeed any.

I wonder if anyone else is actually reading this thread?

Darlow has admitted to being in the same room as several laptops at the Hall he used to live at - he says he got permission to speak to the residents, and when he was done they busted out the laptops. He admits he should have left at that point.
However, no one made a complaint during the complaints period, so it would seem he is safe. The constitution states that the second-place candidate chooses whether or not they take up the position, or it goes to a by-election. The students may now choose to change that rule, if they feel so inclined, by taking it to an SGM. However, as it stands, the earliest anyone could attempt to do anything to Darlow is call for a vote of no confidence after he takes office.

Touche Baxter. :)
1) I was talking about the 20 metre rule enforcement being broken before. Of course it has, as have other breaches with the polling booths which I simply cannot prove here. OUSA is not a cleanly run organisation - but who can name ANY student association that is? So there is little point continuing on that part.
2) You *do* have a lot of knowledge of all the previous campaigns Baxter. I remember complaints going to the Returning Officer and being told to "F off" by OUSA staff and in one case the returning officer. So not all complaints actually get to be helped by "due process". From what I hear, Jo Moore was not popular with OUSA - and we all know that OUSA do not particularly like "outsiders". I may ask which OUSA presidents in say the last 5 years were not already friendly with OUSA or several of the exec?
3) How can we be sure that the 2nd place getter also didn't break the rules? Why can't there be another election? VUWSA run fresh elections for similar cases. Run fresh elections and I can almost guarantee that Jo will not win it this time.... I am sure OUSA will see to that :)

1 - So you admit that these breeches didn't actually happen back in the day (as you claimed earlier) because there was no computer voting. Indeed.
2 - OUSA have not taken this complaint further than any other - the majority of election over the last few years I remember have all ended with complaints to the arbitrator. OUSA is legally bound to abide by the arbitrator's decision as they have always done in the past. As you should be aware they indeed have no choice to over turn the decision even if they wanted.
3 - There can not be an other election as the person who got the most votes without cheating can not simply be displaced without creating a breach of justice.

Oi, I just noticed that I didn't respond to one of your other replies... so I will cover what you said in brief.
You speak of me supporting "conspiracies" and then accuse me of supporting an "anti student association" conspiracy. Touche Baxter! I have always stood by the viewpoint that not one single student should be forced to join OUSA or any oter student union. I wouldn't support you being forced to join as much as I wouldn't support anybody else not having that freedom. So we can consign that one to the bin now mate!
I know the 2nd placed candidate isn't the preferred candidate. Never said it. I was talking in a historical context. Although I am surprised that you are willing to state that OUSA have never breached election rules before. Very cute that you mention that "standing over computers during voting" never happened when we were there, of course not - we never had computer voting then :)
OUSA does not represent the student body, you know it, I know it. What was the percentage of students voting this time? 9% wasn't it? OUSA are not concerned about this, nor have been - as it helps them get the outcome they like. Just as the FACT that OUSA have actually taken this complaint further than they have before against a winner of an election.
I stand by my comment... lets have another election. Other campuses where this has happened before hold new elections.

Clint mate - for the third time, the new winner is not OUSA's "preferred candidate" either. Your unsupported accusations are as silly as suggesting that whoever is 4th in line for the throne would murder Prince Charles - but forget about the person who is 3rd in line...
As for the 20m rule - let me be absolutely clear, Jo wasn't just nearby eating her lunch (as per technical breeches in the past).
She actively ran her own voting booths (clearly outside of the rules), and on occasion was looking at at the screens of who students were voting for (clearly potential intimidation). As we're both well aware, such behaviour certainly NEVER happened in our day mate.
And the problem with simply having another election is that someone won this election fair and square - ie the person who got the most votes without cheating. You can't displace them because someone else cheated.
However, if as Jo alleges the new winner also committed the same breaches, and on the same scale, I do agree there should then be a fresh election. Odd that no one actually made a complaint over such alleged breaches (or even mentioned them afaia) until after they were disqualified...

Oh I am not talking about silly posters being ripped off Baxter, that's what Josh stated when he got his posters ripped down by OUSA people. I was talking about actual breaches of OUSA election rules - such as the 20m rule. I have seen many times exec members following my campaigns tearing down posters and watering over chalkings and I got over it :)
The 20m rule amongst others have been breached before and it seems that now that a certain candidate won - the lawyers have been bought in to "fix" the problem.
The most democratic way to fix this would be to have another election - and the exec to keep its nose out of campaigning for their preferred candidate.

Clint, voluntary membership was always anti-students' associations.
VSM was born as a response to the Oz Liberals not liking the traction students association were getting in the media talking about the negative effects of Liberal's reforms on education. There are Liberal Party conference papers/letters that clearly show their VSM campaign was soley intended to weaken students' associations and their ability to represent students.
The situation is no different here - National/ACT had no interest at all in students' association membership - until they started getting media attention criticising their user-pays policies.
But again, your failed bid for VSM has no relevance here; other than to explain to readers your true motivation for implying OUSA elections are corrupt.
You're quite wrong to claim OUSA is only applying this rule despite it being broken before many times before. It hasn't been broken before.
No one has run their own booths (except in Florida :) ), or indeed stood over students while they voted. These are plainly unacceptable practices. I can't honestly believe you're defending them and passing them off as 'encouraging people to use computers to vote'.
You're also flawed in your logic that this is a left wing conspiracy - the 2nd place winner who replaced Jo is not an OUSA insider or lefty.
And unless you have a shred of proof (or even an example) of OUSA elections being messed with, please desist in your attempts to tarnish OUSA with half allegations.

VSM was never anti OUSA, but you and you mates always took it so personally.
It isn't ironic at all. Jo wasn't the only candidate who encouraged people to use computers to vote. I find it interesting that you're avoiding what I have repeated many times - why is OUSA applying this rule now when it has been broken before many times? It seems that everybody I ask who didn't like Jo are quite staunchly 'left wing' like yourself Baxter.
I find it funny that messing with elections seems to be the only way you and your "side" seem to want to enforce your policies :) It would be simple to have another election - but you just don't seem interested in having it.

If you'd actually read the rules you'd know that breaches that would not have changed the result of the election are not generally actioned.
That's why silly complaints about a handful of posters being defaced made by candidates that got virtually no votes are not actioned.
However, as has happened here the candidate has broken the rules in such a way that was likely to have changed the outcome. And hence OUSA is obliged to take action.
PS - please note these are not "alleged" misdeeds. She has has admitted most of the behavior - she just disagrees with the investigator's finding that such behaviour was a breach.

Clint, if you're not claiming "the independent investigator didn't do the right thing" in finding that she cheated and hence disqualified her - um, what exactly is your problem with this his decision then?
Oh wait, you were just jumping on the dis' OUSA band-wagon at any oppertunity you can to advance your voluntary membership cause, and typically with little knowledge of the facts.
PS - Please stop trying to smear me with half allegations that you should know have no basis.

Oh Baxter, I suggest you get off your high horse if you are going to talk about the behaviour emitting from OUSA. You have been up to your neck in it back in your prime. Now I don't suggest for one moment that the independent investigator didn't do the right thing, but for you of all people to say OUSA have played by the rules here is a little rich mate. The phrase stones and glass houses comes to mind. I believe there should be another election - and I will wager OUSA will make sure this time Jo will not win.

Hey, I just had another thought that shows how baseless your accusations of OUSA "protecting their own" are - the guy that will take other instead of Jo is nothing to do with OUSA either...
PS - I also find it a bit odd your beloved ACT Party thinks Peters should be crucified for campaign funding crimes, while on the other hand you're defending someone who has run their own ballot boxes.
Somehow it doesn't add up - a more cynical person would think you were just exploiting this oppertunity simply to continue your anti-OUSA/pro-VSM campaign...