The Daily Tar Heel
URL: http://www.dailytarheel.com/index.php/article/2012/02/sbp_results_to_stand_despite_glitches
Current Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 12:19:35 -0400
SBP results to stand despite glitches
| 
Tools
Possibly Related
- Pair of Church Street sexual battery cases being investigated by Chapel Hill police MAY 23
- UNC professor is named to the Blue Cross and Blue Shield of N.C. Board of Trustees MAY 23
- Kenan-Flagler study finds a perception gap in women’s leadership opportunities MAY 23
- WakeMed withdraws offer to purchase Rex Healthcare MAY 22
- Governor’s School pushes for restoration of funding MAY 22
The Board of Elections voted unanimously Wednesday to certify the results of Tuesday’s student body president election, silencing claims that issues with the voting website swayed the election’s outcome.
Calvin Lewis edged out Tim Longest for second place and a spot in next week’s runoff election by just four votes Tuesday amid complaints by students that glitches on studentlife.unc.edu kept them from casting a ballot.
Shruthi Sundaram, chairwoman of the board, said the board did everything possible to ensure that students mistakenly placed in the wrong district could vote.
“We did what we could in making sure people had a second, third and fourth outlet” to vote, she said in the board’s Wednesday meeting. “At no point was somebody saying (the website) was your only way to vote.”
Sundaram said about 250 votes were cast via email after students encountered problems online. Once the board’s inbox reached capacity, there was a 10-minute period before students were directed to send their ballots to other email addresses, she said.
Erik Davies, student solicitor general, said the results are valid since there was a fair voting system in place.
“There is not a direct empowerment to have a re-election,” Davies said.
He cited the 2010 Student Supreme Court case involving Student Congress candidate Taylor Holgate, which established that an election’s results are legitimate even if there is a problem with the voting format — as long as students are made aware of other voting resources.
“Any claims about software errors are totally irrelevant,” Davies said. “I take issue with those who say voters were disenfranchised because clearly when you opened the ballot it said you have this option (to email).”
Lewis and top vote recipient Will Leimenstoll will face off in a runoff election Feb. 21.
Members of the board also stressed the general apathy of the student body in their meeting. Only 4,507 students voted in Tuesday’s general election, down from 7,105 last year.
“I know we hate to admit it, but I’m sure we realize that a majority of students don’t care,” Sundaram said. “It really hurts me to say that, but the numbers speak for themselves.”
Longest said this year’s election will hurt voters’ trust in student government.
“It will definitely affect student faith, especially in their ability to make their voices heard,” he said.
Leimenstoll said candidates need to move beyond the controversy and have a clean election.
“The issues with the website affected us all equally,” he said.
Senior Writer Chelsea Bailey contributed reporting.
Contact the University Editor at university@dailytarheel.com.
Online Poll:
Do you think fracking can be done safely?
20 comments
This is utterly disgraceful!!! “The majority of students don’t care?” Ever considered that may be due to running electoral processes which wouldn’t even fly in Latin America? Is it too much to ask to have a simple and straightforward way to vote? Why should we the voter have to need 4 DIFFERENT OUTLETS for casting our vote!? Why not fix your incompetencies? Then talk to us about a lack of interest.
Shruthi Sundaram: Shame on you.
And shame onto you Board of Elections.
To all those who say the problems affected students equally:
What? Think about what you are saying. How can we know that? More importantly how is that even possible when the problems affected certain ENTIRE and SPECIFIC groups of students differently from others.
We know for a fact that grad students were one group that was extremely under-representated. And not for lack of interest but by a system restraint. Do you think that the graduate student voting distribution is the same as the undergraduate? Very doubtful that is.
Perhaps more important issue, is that every student who wants to vote is able to vote (without impediment). I honestly don’t care about who wins or loses, or how all the candidates were “equally” affected by the technical difficulties, I care about the students’ right to be able to vote without jumping through a bunch of unnecessary hoops. i hope next year is better.
Exactly. I can’t believe they have the gall to complain about lack of interest. You make a person jump through enough hoops you’d be surprised how fast they start to not care.
“I know we hate to admit it, but I’m sure we realize that a majority of students don’t care,” Sundaram said. “It really hurts me to say that, but the numbers speak for themselves.”
Finally one person from student government actually tells the truth.
2001 Election: 5837 votes
2002 Election: 6076 votes
2006 Election: 6025 votes
2007 Election: ~6600 votes (runoff)
2008 Election: ~6300 votes
2009 Election: 9513 votes (runoff)
2010 Election: 5499 votes (runoff)
2011 Election: 7105 votes
2012 Election: 4507 votes?
*Runoffs were used when primary data couldn’t be found
Yep, the lowest voter turnout in a decade by almost 1000 votes, and it had everything to do with student apathy. Based off the most recent quotes from Shruthi Sundarum, I am pretty well convinced that she needs to thrown out of her position. She started this entire election cycle placing the burden of educating voters on the new system onto the candidates, when really I would think the Chairwoman of the Board of Elections ought to be the one heading up that role. I mean if she’s going to be the one to introduce a new way of doing things, then she needs to take responsibility for it. However, this most recent quote about “student apathy” clearly demonstrates that she has no capacity for taking responsibility when things do not work out properly. While such behavior may be great when playing house in student government, I’m afraid she’s going to have quite a bit of trouble in the working world, even in politics, if she can’t figure out how to either take responsibility for her shortcomings or be more subtle in deflecting blame.
Yep. She seems to be blaming this on a lack of interest. Regardless: even if interest is down, if just 1 person who wanted to vote is prevented (or unduly hindered) from doing so, this is a failed election. The decision to let the results stands shows nothing but a gross lack of responsibility and you could even say a lack of caring on part of the Board of Elections!
I agree with ‘Shruthi Sundaram. Seriously?’, for shame!
Just so it’s clear it is university policy to vote through collegiate life website. Not the boe. And they have nothing to do with setting up or running the site or the avenues through which students have to vote.
Told you that the BOE is terrible. Especially Sundaram.
@Reality I am aware of that, but the Board of Elections is the group charged with the duty of University Policy as it pertains to the election, and since they are the final destination for votes, they also have the duty of ensuring that those votes make it from voter to them with as little delay or difficulty as possible. They may not be completely to blame, but it’s their job and if they wish to downplay their role or significance, then Sunduram needs to stop dropping quotes and giving opinions like she is an authority.
Thanks for that quick research on vote totals Mystic. I knew that the number of votes stated seemed low, not just apathy low. Someone would look at that and think “well damn, I bet this had to do with all the problems people had trying to vote” and not just assume apathy.
BOE seems to have messed up big time on this one. Too bad it wasn’t the first time.
In my time here at UNC, we’ve used Student Central, my.unc, and now this ridiculous student life site. It went from simple and relatively efficient to completely inconvenient and clearly incompetent.
There should be only ONE means of voting needed. Not two. Not three. And definitely NOT FOUR! This is supposed to be a simple, streamlined process. Students are not apathetic to these elections, as Shruthi deduced, but rather a simple fact that the more obstacles to simply voicing an opinion (in this case SBP, Senior Class, GPSF Prez, etc) heard you put in front of a student, the less likely they are to continued trying. Whether or not options were provided midway through the period for voting or not, there should not have been a need for three different e-mail addresses for votes or even the request for handwritten votes.
These results should have been thrown out, with a 40% reduction in turnout and a 4-vote difference between second and third place! There was sufficient evidence that students were disenfranchised by the obstacles placed in front of them from even voting in their correct district. It’s like saying a poll tax isn’t really an obstacle because if people cared enough they would pay out. In this case, the payout was time and effort. The BOE, Jon Curtis, and this stupid website required more time and effort than is reasonable for student elections. Period.
Sorry… Correction
…rather a simple fact that the more obstacles placed in front of simply voicing an opinion (in this case SBP, Senior Class, GPSF Prez, etc) for a student, the less likely they are to continue trying to vote. Whether or not options were provided midway through the period for voting, there should not have been a need for three different e-mail addresses for votes or even the request for handwritten votes.
Wonder how much turnout would be off with a “re-do” election. These things are fake enough without getting a mulligan. Also 4 votes? Yeah for the two people 1k votes BEHIND Leimenstoll.
I’ve seen a few of these elections now and a simple rules change could have solved this problem and the runoffs we seem to have on a yearly basis. In state law, one only needs 40% of the vote to avoid a run-off. Why not institute a 40% 10% rule for SBP. A candidate has to get 40 percent of the total number of votes cast and have a lead of at least 10 percentage points to avoid a run off. If it’s good enough for real elections, it should be good enough for SBP ones.
First, a special hello to “I tried to tell you last year,” aka Rick Ingram. Rick, I cannot believe that a year later you are still whining about your loss through every conceivable channel. If you honestly think you have a future in politics, you are sorely, sorely mistaken.
But to the real issue, I agree that the BOE should stop changing the voting system so dramatically year to year. That being said, you can hardly blame Shruthi for saying that students are apathetic when the ballot said that you can email in votes – and these “disenfranchised” students refused! Come on, how much does it take to open up a new browser and fire off an email?
To those complaining, especially the “extremely under-representated” grad students…GROW UP! If you were so compelled by civic duty then you would have lifted a finger to shoot off a ballot via email. You are all blowing the problem way out of proportion.
Grow Up, as has been said repeatedly in many different places, even e-mailing in votes did not work through out the day as the mailboxes filled to capacity quickly and bounced e-mails back. While Leimenstoll’s place at first certainly shouldn’t be contested, it’s not hard to imagine that with a difference of only four votes separating them, it would have only taken a handful more e-mailed votes for either Lewis or Longest to have switched places. It’s more immature for an organization, whose sole purpose is to ensure a fair and smooth running election, to not take responsibility for their lack of foresight and preparation than for graduate students to feel that their votes were not counted.
A few thoughts:
1) When the BOE had election problems two years ago, the chair was quoted in the DTH saying, “Yeah, we f’ed up.” That was the best.
2) I don’t understand how I was supposed to know of alternative methods of voting. I’m a grad student, once I saw I was supposed to vote in the undergrad off campus district, I went to the BOE website, emailed the listed address, and never got a response. I had no idea what to do after that, so I did nothing.
3) I think perhaps the Off Campus district of congress should be voted on again, as I imagine many graduate students voted for those candidates because they didn’t realize they weren’t supposed to.
4) Where can I find the complete election results?
I am just learning that I was not the only one who was unable to vote- that there may have been hundreds even thousands. This is all the fault of the BOE and website because of dysfunction and impediments in the voting process.
Even worse they try to blame the students for not jumping through enough unrealistic hoops to cast their vote which angers me even more because I spent valuable time researching and selecting a candidate to support. Working a 12hr nursing shift, taking classes and still finding time to research the candidates and vote is far from being apathetic and my vote should have been counted.
It is also not fair that some of the campaigns informed and helped their supporters register to vote beforehand and those of us who were not associated with a campaign were not provided this assistance. Surely their votes were all easily submitted and counted on voting day. Very unfair that the rest of us were left frustrated and hung out to dry.
It’s a shame that hundreds even thousands of students did not get to vote and the university has failed to accept responsibility. All the student’s were not equally affected and probably not all candidates were equally affected. This election was a complete disaster and UNC/BOE reaction to it an utter disgrace!
It is a form of discrimination that some students could vote on the system while others could not and instead had to submit an email. But if that’s not enough then what about the emails not being accepted.
For Sundaram to say she did not think the glitches affected the end results means she is in complete denial or just malicious.Of curse the results were affected because there were students whose voices were not heard and votes not tallied.
Read more …
These students (certain seniors, grad students and off campus students) were restricted from opportunities that were available to others students and when recognized nothing was done by the university to remedy it. A simple fixing of the technology and re-vote would have sufficed.
If you feel this process needs to be redone, then sue! Contact Erik Davies, and sue for a revote based on your challenges with voting. They extend to hundreds and maybe even thousands of others. I implore you to sue on behalf of the student body. Do it today before it’s too late!
Join the discussion
You Should Know
The Daily Tar Heel reserves the right to remove any comment deemed racially derogatory, inflammatory, or spammatory. Repeat offenders may have their IP address banned from posting future comments. Please be nice.
If this is the first time you've commented, your comment won't appear until you've verified your email address.
Formatting Options:
- Links: "my link":http://my.url.com
- Bold: *something!*
- Italic: _OMG!_
Serving UNC students and the community since 1893
© 2012 DTH Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.
Flag this comment