predicting the winner
After 10 days of observing some subset of [websites, classroom talks, debates, personal pitches, coverage, profiles, interviews, videos, *], I suspect most people have some expectation of who will come out on top. Enter this post. I’ll make my predictions, and please add your own predictions in the comments. I’ll try to collect some aggregate numbers based on the comments.
I have written down my reasons for these choices but I won’t share them yet lest I taint your own predictions. I do have a reason for all of them, and look forward to discussing them over the coming days. I will say that these are NOT based on who I want to win, or who did the best at whatever, or who would do the best job if elected, or any of that. It’s based on who I expect to vote, and what information I expect will be available to them, and how I expect they will decide based on that.
As is my new custom, I offer betting odds* to let you know my certainty. As always, spoiled and blank ballots are excluded.
Candidates who I am predicting will not win should take great comfort in the fact that I am often wrong, though typically better than just randomly picking names.
To see the actual predictions, click the Read More link below.
Turnout
19% or better. You heard it here first.
President
Expected results: 1. Saulnier, 2. Bailey, 3. Debogorski
The odds: Saulnier is a 3:2 favorite, with Bailey on the wrong side of those odds. Debogorski is a 1000:1 long shot, just like last year.
The numbers: For the first ballot, 1. Saulnier 45, 2. Bailey 40, 3. Debogorski 15. The second ballot, 51-49 for Saulnier.
VP Internal
Man this was tough. I changed what I had here 5 times as I thought of new things to consider.
Expected results: Kurin wins, Whitfield, Blake, and Hiltz all within a few percent of each other, I suspect in that order but don’t “expect” anything.
The odds: 2.5:1 odds against Kurin, 3:1 against Whitfield or Blake winning. Slightly worse for Hiltz, 3.5:1. Basically saying they all have a mostly equal chance of winning, with Kurin a little more equal than everyone else.
The numbers: I have no idea. For the sake of putting numbers out there, Kurin 28, Whitfield 25, Blake 24, Hiltz 23. 2nd ballot, Whitfield 35, Kurin 34, 31 Blake. 3rd ballot, Kurin 55, Whitfield 45.
VP Education
Expected results: 1. Leforte, 2. Price, 3. Dempsey
The odds: I wouldn’t take bets on anything worse than 1.1:1 against LeForte winning. Price is still in the game at 5:1, and I’m giving Dempsey the 1000:1 long shot.
The numbers: Leforte takes it in one ballot, with Price not as close as he’d be against any other candidate, and Dempsey a distant 3rd. 51, 39, 10
VP Student Life
Expected results: I’m predicting a shocking upset, with “No” striding out to a 52-48 victory.
But not really. Dahn obviously wins, and I’m prepared to give her 90-10. I wouldn’t even take bets that she’ll win, though I’d give you 500:1 odds if you were to bet against her, and happily take your money.
Senate
Expected results: Lovett, Nicholson, Wedge, Browne. Not necessarily in that order, but the first three will be the ones holding Senate seats at the end of the day.
The odds: I’m giving the first three 3:1, and Browne 4:1.
The numbers: Meh, can’t be sure. For the sake of putting numbers out there, 27, 27, 25, 21.
* Betting Odds: ”3:1 odds against John winning” means there is a 75% chance John will lose, and a 25% chance he will win. ”3:1 odds against John losing” means there is a 75% chance John will win, and a 25% he will lose. Odds are expressed this way for convenience: “3 to 1 against John winning” means if you bet $1 that John wins and are right, you win three dollars on top of the $1 you bet. The greater the odds against you being right, the more money you win if you actually are. ”1:1″ odds are a “50/50 shot”, and you would double your money (win $1 on top of the $1 you bet). Kevin, from The Office, says you should always take 10,000:1 odds, and I think he’s right.
Again: please add your predictions in the comments!
PRESIDENT
Saulnier: 59
Bailey: 29
Debogorski: 12
VICE PRESIDENT (INTERNAL)
-First Ballot-
Kurin: 31
Whitfield: 29
Blake: 21
Hiltz: 19
-Second Ballot-
Whitfield: 39
Kurin: 37
Blake: 24
-Third Ballot-
Kurin: 55
Whitfield: 45
VICE PRESIDENT (EDUCATION)
Leforte: 58
Price: 37
Dempsey: 5
VICE PRESIDENT (STUDENT LIFE)
Dahn: 89
No: 11
SENATE
Lovett: 30
Wedge: 28
Nicholson: 25
Browne: 17
@Eric Snow
I’m curious, why do you think Whitfield is going to get more votes than Blake?
@Catherine Holloway
I think Whitfield has campaigned harder, had more support, and knows more people. Blake has a rock solid platform, but I don’t know how much he’s gotten out there with his message; he’s basically been flying solo in terms of campaigning. I also think that Whitfield is probably better in front of an audience than Blake is, though I admittedly haven’t seen either one do a class talk. This is based on the debates and what I know about them personally.
Furthermore, while I think Hiltz will do very well as a 2nd and 3rd choice, I don’t see him having as much support on the 1st (which is why I think he’ll be the first one knocked off). When he does, I anticipate that a majority of his support will go to Whitfield, a minority over to Kurin and only a small portion to Blake. I actually think Blake would do quite well on 2nd choices from Kurin; unfortunately for him, I expect Kurin to make it to the final ballot, even if she loses the election.
I also want to state that my predictions above (similar to Mike’s) are not a reflection of what I think should happen, or at all how I will be voting. Even a candidate who I’m expecting to lose dramatically may still have my vote if I personally think they deserve it.
@Mike Smit: I’ve always enjoyed these, and it’s wierd being a name mentioned in the post.
Thanks for doing what you do Punditry team, and here’s to hoping you’re wrong (No offense!).
- Henry
Here’s my predictions:
President:
6:2:1 (Saulnier, Bailey,Deborgorski)
VPI:
7:5:4:4 (Whitfield, Kurin, Hiltz, Blake)
VPE:
6:4:1 (LeForte,Price, Dempsey)
VPSL:
6:1 Dahn (yes,no)
Senate:
4:3:2:1 (Browne, Wedge, Lovett, Nicolson)
Voter turnout: 20%
I’m going to be honest, I’m torn for President…Toss-up!
President – Bailey
VPI – Kurin
VPE – LeForte
VSPL – No (haha. but, that’s how I’m voting)
Senate – Wedge, Nicholson, Browne
Turnout: 15%
Comment first, and then predictions.
One thing I hope is that whoever wins these elections notices that as it stands, nobody has it right. If we really want to see a more effective union moving forward, we need candidates to feel comfortable stealing some of the better ideas their competition put forward. Our President needs to be a little bit Chris, a little bit Neil, and yes, a little bit Greg. Debogorski can be rude and some of his ideas are crazy, but if you want to see people getting more involved come election time, referendum throughout the year will help with that.
President:
The buzz among the “in-crowd” is Chris Saulnier takes it. I hope this is wrong, not because Chris wont do a good job but because I believe people like Neil should be HIREING people like Chris. I like my leaders inspirational and memorable and nothing during the campaign made me feel Chris fits the bill.
VPI:
I don’t know what to say. I don’t want to offend anyone, especially Tim and Henry who are members of the same fraternity as I am but none of these candidates made me want to get up and vote. Originally I was against Blake but I feel like he has the best ideas, and I feel comfortable that I am getting an honest answer from him when he speaks. I think Henry’s support base isn’t going to vote, and I think that Tim had a great chance at the beginning but seemed to get shy once the mud flew. I think that Kurin is just
Prediction: Barring a lot of new voters – I think Kurin will get some extra votes for being a girl and take it.
VPE:
Price is great, but Leforte was just amazing.
Prediction: Leforte
VPSL:
Dahn
Senate:
Nobody made me care about the senate, and I don’t identify with any of the candidates.
Related closing comment:
One thing I’m confused about is the whole argument over the so called insiders and outsiders. In the case of Neil it makes sense because he is literally brand new to the group, but I feel like labels like that keep people from getting into politics. What I’ve learned over these elections is that the “in-crowd” just happen to be a bunch of people that know each other because they are all active on campus. I’m sure if I asked to sit down with these people and have a chat about student politics they wouldn’t say no.
The issue is that the second you were all labelled as insiders, the rest of us became outsiders… and it’s intimidating to try to mingle between groups. Student politics is fun, relatively easy to understand, and rewarding. You want to see more people come out and vote? Lets figure out a way to address the in-group out-group issues… together… respectfully. Will that happen? Not without checking the history at the door. Greg, if you’re reading this I want to meet with you over a beer some time. You’ve done a great job of bringing issues to the table and trying to keep people accountable, now lets find a way to build some bridges and make actual progress. All the other pundits and candidates are welcome, we can even make a date of it. If you’re interested (and if everything you’ve all said about making the union better is true you should be) fire me an e-mail:
thetimbot@gmail.com
@Catherine Holloway
Whoops, I missed turnout. I’m calling for 21%, though I may have to revise that based on how much of a presence the Elections Committee has.
I know that the VPI race is going to be very tight and could literally go to anybody, but you are all giving too much credit to people where it isn’t due.
Kurin – okay yes she was all around campus and she did do a lot of class talks, I saw her in 2 of my classes, but let’s face it guys. No one could take her seriously, she is not a good public speaker and she did not present her ideas well at all in either of my class talks. After class most of us stood outside and talked about how hard the presentation was to listen to. If this was the case for 2 of my classes then what is it like for other classes, or for people she talked to on the street. Also let’s not forget the fact that she is way too soft spoken and if anyone ever came to her upset with something, she wouldn’t be able to say ” okay just calm down let’s work this out”. she’s the kind of person that would just sit there and not be able to take control of the situation.
Whitfield – wow where do i begin? Henry has done some great things for Howe Hall in the past few years, and I do applaud him for getting Howe where it is today, but this guy has made a lot of enemies in the past. Risley Hall as much as he thinks they all like him, because he decided to go wear an I Love Risley shirt around for a night, they all see right through him. Everyone knows that Henry’s philosophy is that he will win no matter what it takes, and from what I’ve come to understand this is the same approach he’s taken with this campaign. All of the allegations that have been thrown around in this race I would normally not believe any of them because it’s politics, but I live in Howe with the guy and I see and hear about all the dirty little things he does just to try and come out on top. So I have no doubt that Henry has been doing dirty stuff just to try and win the election. The pressing issue is really how is this guy even allowed to run in the election?? I mean he was academically dismissed in the fall I don’t know who he had to bribe to get let back in but the guy was done. Do we really want a guy like this representing students? I mean what happens if he fails a course in the summer or fall? We’ve now just lost our VPI due to academic reasons….yeah I’m sure that’s what students want to have representing them. Also he’s caused a lot of turmoil in Res stepping on everyone’s toes trying to still be the president even though he’s not, and almost every girls I’ve talked to around Howe thinks hes an @$$ because he’s a total man whore. And Henry if you are so ” Black and Gold to the Bone” then run for Student Life, you and the rest of campus know your not fit to be a VPI, and if you get elected you won’t uphold every area of your portfolio.
Hiltz – Well he did come and do a talk to one of my classes. I really enjoyed what he had to say, and he got his points across quickly and effectively. I have seen this guy around the SUB on several occasions, normally working (what do the Night Managers do exactly?) or talking to friends and staff mates. I’ve heard that Hiltz worked as the current VPI’s commissionaire akk year which makes me think that we would have a great background going into office. Now I know that he is part of one of the local fraternities and I do not know what to think of this. All I know of fraternities is what I’ve seen from the movies, and from what I’ve hear he’s part of one that has an alcohol-free house. So something tells me that it’s not your typical fraternity. The guys seems very personable and I saw the Studley debate and I don’t know what you “Pundits” think you know about debating or public speaking but this man tore up the debates. He was very well spoken (the best in my opinion) he had great ideas and he had a passion for what he was talking about. As far as active campaigning, I did not see Hiltz around campus at all (even though he claims to have been on his website) anytime I saw him he was talking with other candidates or friends rather than campaigning.
Blake – Well Glenn, I’m sorry man but I don’t really know you outside of the debates. I know that he has had a lot of input with sustainability and from what I hear he got screwed hardcore on the sustainability report card. I’ve also heard that he is an active member with DalOut. I have seen him around campus a couple of times, normally outside of the SUB or walking by. I can say that Blake has some of the best initiatives in his platform and at the debate he spoke very well, but was just overshadowed by the amazing performance by Hiltz. Blake is a guy that will definitely work hard and do a great job in this position.
Conclusions:
Well like I said it’s waaay too close to call. The only thing I hope is that students realize that the best 2 candidates to represent them in the DSU are Hiltz and Blake. These 2 guys ran great campaigns and represented themselves very well. As far as Kurin, good job but you are too soft spoken and like I said there’s no way you could deal with confrontation properly. Henry…well I think I said it all above, there’s no way in hell this guy should be even allowed to be running in this election, let alone why students would want him representing them in the DSU.
For anyone who didn’t bother to read “Howe Voter”s post, here’s the summary: He or she hates Henry, and doesn’t have a prediction, but sure hopes it isn’t Henry. We’re all wrong, though.
Haven’t figured out how to record that one yet.
I don’t know that there is an argument about in-group versus out-group. I know every time I – and most of the people I know – refer to people as “insiders” in this elections context, the intent is not to establish a special, separate group, but rather to conveniently identify/refer to a group of people who we expect will know candidates personally, attend one or more elections events, be more likely to read punditry.ca, and have a 90-100% voter turnout rate. This definition might include Debogorski, for example. I’ve also heard the term “informed” versus “uninformed”, but I find that is both insulting and inaccurate.
I’ve recently started trying to exclusively use the term “involved [with the DSU]” versus “uninvolved [with the DSU]” student in the elections context; I find that is a more accurate distinction, and is not a barrier, real or perceived: one can switch between categorizations essentially at will. And these aren’t broad terms; “involved” means involvement with the DSU at or beyond a certain level, including society leaders on campus with DSU interaction.
Speaking personally, literally the ONLY time I make the distinction is a) when asking students about the DSU (an involved student may have a different perspective from an uninvolved one), or b) DSU elections, when contemplating the potential results or the appeal of candidates. These are the few times I think the distinction is relevant.
Okay, I’ll weigh in. Also, sorry for stealing your template Eric. It was too nice.
What I’d like to happen (i.e. Endorsements):
President – Saulnier
VPI – Blake
VPE – LeForte
Senate – Wedge
What I think will probably happen:
PRESIDENT
-First Ballot-
Saulnier:45
Bailey: 35
Debogorski: 20
-Second Ballot-
Saulnier:50ish
Bailey: 50ish
VICE PRESIDENT (INTERNAL)
-First Ballot- ( I make no predictions for the later ballots)
Kurin: 36
Whitfield: 24
Blake: 23
Hiltz: 17
VICE PRESIDENT (EDUCATION)
Leforte: 70
Price: 28
Dempsey: 2
VICE PRESIDENT (STUDENT LIFE)
Dahn: 85
No: 15
SENATE
Wedge: 30
Lovett: 26
Nicholson: 22
Browne: 22
@Howe Voter: Glad you were able to vent and put your thoughts out there, but I would invite you to sit down and actually get to know me.
The rumours and BS that goes on, well, actual approach me, sit down and lets chat and I’d sincerely hope you didn’t feel the same way.
If you still felt the same way after getting to know me, that’s great and thats fine, but I truly feel that either you’ve taken hearsay and rumours and made them fact, or you’ve really never tried to get to know me.
However, thanks for the input.
If there’s an “honor while under anonymous attack” award of these elections, I declare Henry the winner.
-BREAKING NEWS-
I’ve just come back from the future and thanks to my DeLorean I’m able to bring you the ACTUAL results of the DSU elections 2010! Eat it up! I’m also able to tell you that the world doesn’t end in 2012… stupid mayans…
President:
-First Ballot-
Saulnier: 52
Bailey: 33
Debogorski: 15
VPI:
-First Ballot-
Whitfield: 32
Kurin: 30
Hiltz: 20
Blake: 18
-Second Ballot-
Kurin: 38
Whitfield: 37
Hiltz: 25
- Third Ballot -
Whitfield: 52
Kurin: 48
(Aside: I’m able to say that in the future Whitfield is able to smash all the biased people who openly criticized him by doing an amazing job!)
VPSL:
Dahn: 92
No: 8
VPED:
Leforte: 59
Price: 30
Dempsey: 11
Senate:
Wedge: 32
Lovett: 29
Browne: 21
Nicholson: 18
I have to disagree with your interpretation of the VPI portfolio. having worked with Kayla professionally with DASSS I can attest that Kayla is actually VERY good at conflict resolution. In fact, as the VP of DASSS, she often works closely with our society Chair to resolve departmental society problems. I can lend an example – we had a delinquent department society that caused significant internal strife amongst DASSS council and the executive. It was a bad situation, and it quickly turned into a personal situation. Kayla not only worked closely to mediate the problem, but she also had to demonstrate conflict resolution at the executive and departmental level as well. You need that in an executive. As a president, I want someone who can say to me “calm the f*** down” rather then someone who would simply say “deal with it yourself.” Trust, her soft spoken nature only makes the situation BETTER – she provides a level of calm, level headed thinking that may be lacking in personal student politics. Also, even at the DSU level, she provided an alternative motion to the Secret Contract debate – a time when people were screaming for blood from the SMAC and DSU side. You may say that Kayla “seems like the type of person,” but I can say that she is certainly NOT the type of person that you describe her as.
The VPI is meant to serve as a vital liaison between the DSU and societies, and I do not believe part of that job description entails “let’s – see – who – can – yell/talk – the – loudest.”
A recurring “concern” throughout this campaign
The DSU VP Internal is the communications officer for the union. Ability to project oneself in a room of angry people who are arguing over something may be an asset. Mark has often had to take control of a situation as he chairs several committees. His ability to talk the loudest has come in handy I’m sure.
PRESIDENT
-First Ballot-
Saulnier:48
Bailey: 35
Debogorski: 17
-Second Ballot-
Saulnier:55
Bailey: 45
VICE PRESIDENT (INTERNAL)
No predictions it’s a shot in the dark- I want Glenn to win though!
VICE PRESIDENT (EDUCATION)
Leforte: 60
Price: 30
Dempsey: 10
VICE PRESIDENT (STUDENT LIFE)
Dahn: 90
No: 10
SENATE
Wedge: 30
Lovett: 30
Nicholson: 20
Browne: 20
I am a huge B-Wedge supporter but also a Lovett supporter and I think both have done great jobs in this campaign and having them both on Senate would bring two distinctly unique perspectives.
Here`s my predictions (probably not good ones, but we`ll see. This isn`t what I want to happen, though, necessarily).
President
Saulnier – 53
Bailey – 37
Debogorski – 10
VPI (Really not sure about this one – it’ll be a big surprise, methinks)
First Ballot
Whitfield – 28
Kurin – 27
Blake – 25
Hiltz – 20
Second Ballot (even bigger question mark than first ballot)
Kurin – 50
Whitfield – 30
Blake – 20
VPEd
Leforte – 65
Price – 32
Dempsey – 3
VPSL
Yes – 85
No – 15
Senate
Wedge – 30
Lovett – 28
Browne – 25
Nicholson – 17
@Triegdb
Just to clarify the way voting works is if the first ballot finds no one to have majority the candidate with the least votes is cut and all those ballots cast for them get reallocated to the second person on that ballot. Therefore it is impossible for a candidate to score a lower % of the votes on the second ballot than the first as there is no way for them to lose votes
We all know this is nuts, but let’s just say I’m taking Kevin from the Office’s advice.
Voter Turnout: 23%
We have no extremely compelling issue this time around, but Neil, Evan, Karl, Christian are new faces that may bring in previously untapped voting blocks, and word has it that Greg has been doing more rabble-rousing this time around. It’s a possibility.
PRESIDENT
-First Ballot-
Saulnier:40
Bailey: 25
Debogorski: 35
So this is the best scenario I can come up with for Greg. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that Greg did a great job getting the message out there with his increased campaign efforts. Also, his info on the elections website looks solid enough to sway many of the new voters without previously formed opinions. Let’s also say that Bailey’s potential Sexton base is siphoned off by Saulnier. Greg outlasts him on the first ballot.
-Second Ballot-
Saulnier:50
Debogorski: 50
Bailey’s voters split 10% to Saulnier due to Sexton roots and nice smile, and 15% to Debogorski for the promise of change.
Crisis.
We are saved a dead heat by the virtue of a single vote cast by a student who logged on at 5:59 pm on Wednesday after being harassed by Eric Snow’s status updates all week long. With the seconds ticking way, he voted Debogorski, because he vaguely remembered Eric creating a Facebook group in support of him at some point.
All hail president Debogorski.
VICE PRESIDENT (INTERNAL)
Whitfield.
No Kurin.
Hiltz has lots of friends though.
(But Blake could surprize…)
Screw it, I’m sticking with my initial prediction from the first day of the campaign:
Third Ballot. Whitfield by a drunken frat boy.
VICE PRESIDENT (EDUCATION)
Leforte: 51
Price: 39
Dempsey: 10
Price has campaigned like a mofo, but Leforte has the most insider support out of any candidate. A great resume too. And a video that is 10 seconds longer than it should be. I could be off with this though — if voter turnout actually does somehow hit 23%, it will likely be in large part due to Price, so keep an eye out for a possible upset.
VICE PRESIDENT (STUDENT LIFE)
Dahn: 92
No: 8
SENATE
Wedge: 28
Lovett: 30
Nicholson: 22
Browne: 20
Note: Curse of the know-it-all may still sap upwards of 10% off Wedge’s number. Looking back at the Election 08 predictions, most people had Christofi coming in a close second to Eric Snow. 1 in 13 Predicted Hughes would get a seat. Not to make you sweat out the next few days or anything Ben.
On a potentially chilling note, my best guess last year was the one I called a 50/50 toss up. I was secretly leaning towards Hobbs by a hair.
@Tara Dahn
Duly noted. Thanks! (Apparently, I didn’t pay enough attention in first-year poli. sci.)
With that said, I’ll change my second VPI ballot to:
Kurin – 37
Whitfield – 32
Blake – 30
Which gives a third ballot of
Kurin – 55
Whitfield – 45
I also realized that I forgot to do voter turnout.
Voter turnout: 15
@Zhindra Gillis
From what I hear, you’re the only one angry and yelling. Most other university students know there are more effective ways to raise concerns. Yelling is not a good form of communication, it tends to alienate and polarize people and raise the level of anger in the room. That’s not really a quality I want in my VPI…
Voter Turnout: 18%
PRESIDENT
=========
Saulnier:58
Bailey: 27
Debogorski: 15
VPI
===
First:
Kurin: 37
Whitfield: 33
Blake: 15
Hiltz: 15
Second:
Kurin: 53
Whitfield: 37
Blake: 10
VPED
====
Leforte: 51
Price: 39
Dempsey: 10
VPSL
====
Dahn: 94
No: 6
SENATE
======
Wedge: 33
Lovett: 30
Browne: 21
Nicholson: 16t
@Triegdb
@Carpooling 4 Jesus
I don’t want to comment on anyone’s specific numbers, but in this case, I feel I should point out part of how the ranked ballot works.
When no candidate has received 50% of the vote, the candidate with the lowest vote count has his or her votes redistributed to his or her second choice. In that system, unless I’m missing something, it is actually impossible for any candidate to see their vote count go down (as Blake does in both of your prediction). Candidates can go up or stay the same, but not go down.
Interesting to see some trends emerge. Looks like there’s a consensus on VP(Ed) and VP(SL), and close to one on Senate. President is a bit more confusing, and VP(I), though still a mess, is still seeing some patterns emerge.
I, for one, can’t wait to see the actual results.
I thought so, but I was so stunningly lazy I didn’t want to copy and paste their names a third time. I JUST WANTED IT TO END.
First:
Kurin: 37
Whitfield: 33
Blake: 15
Hiltz: 15
Second:
Kurin: 44
Whitfield: 38
Blake: 18
Third:
Kurin: 53
Whitfield: 47
@girl xx
If you think I am the only student who gets angry or upset over things pertaining to the DSU or about things not being effective then you are either out of touch with reality or you haven’t been paying attention for the last few years. Case and point the AGM last year. This sounds an awful lot like a personal attack on me in response to what I consider a pretty offhand comment.(I have to wonder to myself if this is who I think it is) For the record I didn’t say the VPI had to be angry and yelling I said they sometimes had to handle angry and yelling students and if you think I am the first or the last you are sadly mistaken. One of the first interactions I had with Mark he was telling me about some person he was dealing with that was upset in his office.
At least I am passionate about what I do and I make no apologies. I do believe I have done a great deal of my work in a professional manner and I do believe I have listened and had productive discussions with people 99.9% of the time. There was an incident a few weeks ago where I did get quite upset with Mark. He handled it very well and I commend him for it. I stand by what I said.
You guys underestimate Price and Debo, and I am not joking. Word on the street is very, very positive between these two candidates.
Someone I know claimed that Price shook at least 1 000 hands during the course of the campaign. I ran into a group of 4 girls today that went out of their way to vote just Price and nobody else. Nutso.
We ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
And I would probably take a 1000:1 bet on Debo, so long as it was $1 I was betting.
@Zhindra Gillis
What’s with all the confrontation? Angry and yelling isn’t a quality that should be encouraged in anyone, maybe you just need to relax?
@John Hillman
“We are saved a dead heat by the virtue of a single vote cast by a student who logged on at 5:59 pm on Wednesday after being harassed by Eric Snow’s status updates all week long. With the seconds ticking way, he voted Debogorski, because he vaguely remembered Eric creating a Facebook group in support of him at some point. ”
You just made my night.
I think that Debo creeped in to a lot of peoples’ second choice. If he can beat Bailey on the first ballot somehow, I would not rule this stuff out.
@Mystery Man
I don’t buy it. Not every handshake will translate into votes. I know tons of people who did the same thing for Edgar Burns last year. He campaigned like mad, probably did more class talks and shook more hands than incumbent did, if I had to guess. In the end, he was still crushed. That was before Leforte became an incumbent.
I actually agree with you that Debogorski could beat out Bailey. I don’t think he will, but if his video rubs him the right way and Bailey didn’t get out there enough, it could happen. I still don’t think it translates into a win (plenty of Bailey voters will rank Saulnier 2nd, even if Debogorski voters won’t).
But in any case, I’d love to see your predictions. =)
@Broseph Lieberman
I’m not endorsing it I am saying the DSU VPI sometimes needs to handle it and respond to it. I was upset with him because of a frustration I had and frustrations I have been having all year. I don’t think this is the forum to air dirty laundry(especially things that have been resolved) though so I won’t give anymore detail than that.
I’m curious as to why everyone’s Senate numbers add up to 100%, given that one may vote for up to three candidates. Maybe I misunderstood.
Alright:
President
First Ballot
Saulnier – 40
Bailey – 36
Debo – 24
Second Ballot
Bailey 54
Saulnier 46
I think Bailey’s one-on-one pounding the pavement will carry him at the end.
VPI
First
Whitfield 31
Hiltz 25
Blake 23
Kurin 21
Second
Whitfield 37
Hiltz 35
Blake 28
Third
Hiltz 51
Whitfield 49
In the battle of the frat boys, I think Hiltz will win by a sliver.
VPSL
Yes 88
No 12
Dahn’s comments toward Sexton the other day may have alienated a few people.
VP Ed
First
Leforte 44
Price 40
Dempsey 16
Second
Price 52
Leforte 48
See president, above.
Senate
Wedge 70
Lovett 67
Browne 52
Nicolson 48
Did I misunderstand how the counting for Senate works, by any chance?
Overall turnout? 19.7%
@Zhindra Gillis
Unless he had illicit relations with the flaming corpse of your cherished family pet I’m not sure why you might have felt justified in being angry and yelling with what, when it all boils down, is just another student.
To borrow a phrase, “My God! Act civilized, even if you ain’t.”
@Samer
Even with up to three votes, there’s still a total number of votes cast, and a total number of votes for each candidate. Therefore, there will still be percentages.
Interesting predictions. You can obviously see what I think above, though I’m particularly surprised by calling for Kurin off on the first ballot (possibly the thing I’m most positive will NOT happen, except perhaps Dahn losing), as well as Dempsey at 16% (generous, but precedent for equally competitive candidates tells me he’ll be doing fine to get half that). You’re also the first person to call for Price to win. The bright side is that if you’re right, you totally have bragging rights.
I’m enjoying this way more than I should.
They add up to 100% because regardless of how many votes one person can cast, the fraction of total votes each candidate receives is still expressed as a percentage. If 100 people login and vote, they could cast a total of 300 “votes” for the Senate position. Assuming (for easy math) each candidate receives 70 votes, each has achieved 25% of the total votes cast. This is the traditional way to describe the outcome of the senate race. I prefer this simply because it is numerically more consistent with how we report the rest of the positions: a percentage.
Two alternatives come to mind:
1. Using 300% as the total. In my easy example, each candidate would receive 75%. I think this is nasty; a “per cent” should be out of 100, in my mind.
2. Using the percentage of total voters that selected this candidate. So referring back to the example, each candidate got 70 votes, which means each received 70% of the vote. This might be a bit more meaningful as it expresses the level of support for each candidate, and it sounds a bit better to win with 70% of the vote than 25%, but for me at least it’s easier to compare relative performance by seeing the results expressed as a true percentage.
@Broseph Lieberman
That’s your opinion. You are talking about something that happened in the past and actually isn’t even the main point of the argument. I don’t know if you are trying to egg me on but your last response just degraded the whole argument from being about the VPI needing to be able to handle a situation to you picking on me for something I did. You weren’t there you don’t know the situation so don’t judge me. And still I am not the first and won’t be the last.
@Zhindra Gillis
No, I don’t think the VPI needs to be able to handle that particular situation. If your response to something is to yell and scream, you need to grow the fuck up. You seem bizarrely proud of it too, insisting that I not judge you though you “make no apologies” for acting like a child.
@Broseph Lieberman
OK I don’t really understand what you are trying to accomplish.
@Zhindra Gillis
Education through shame.
@Broseph Lieberman
The best part about this is how you are hiding behind a fake name and swearing at someone who has worked extremely hard for the betterment of the Dal experience. Sure, she’s made mistakes. Mistakes that have sometimes angered me. I agree that her performance in the yelling-at-Mark situation left a lot to be desired. But she’s not hiding and taking potshots. She’s out in the open, like you should be, given the tone of your comments.
Maybe Mike Smit will expose you? That’d be precedent setting.
@Samer
I think the best part is actually how you don’t disagree with me, you just object to my pseudonymity.
@Samer
Oops, accidentally posted that under my real name.
@Broseph Lieberman
When I am paying them a salary, a DSU exec stops being “just another student” and starts being someone I feel I have a right to critic the job performance of. Based on events of the past year, many students seem to share this position (whether they have been pleased or upset by an exec’s performance).
@DSU dues-payer
Where did I say you couldn’t critique (what the fuck is it with this site and spelling?) a DSU exec’s performance? If they’re doing something wrong I actively encourage you to let them know. Go nuts.
That said, I actively DISCOURAGE you from throwing a tantrum — it’s unproductive, unprofessional and unacceptable. Don’t be a dick, be a dude.