punditry.ca — uncovering DSU elections

The DKC has come out in support of Eric Snow for president. Presumably, this is because of yesterday’s posting of his opinions on NSPIRG.

In other news, after being pushed further for his thoughts on NSPIRG, Eric has gone even further to say that he will “revisit” the current situation surrounding NSPIRG’s office space in the SUB.

Obviously the big news today was Eric Snow calling for NSPIRG reform. Agree with him or not, you have to admit its ballsy. NSPIRG is one of the hot-button issues in the SUB these days, and I rarely see an elections candidate stand up and take a firm stand on a hot issue. Candidates “take stands” on issues all the time, but normally its something entirely uncontroversial: “We need better food on campus.” “Tuition should be lower”. I would imagine the vocal group of people who love NSPIRG will rush to campaign against Eric, and that those groups demanding change from NSPIRG will rush to campaign for him. The possibility exists this election will be determined by how effectively each side mobilizes support.  Debogorski has come out strongly in favor of NSPIRG, while Zimmerman is content to sit this one out.

Mark Coffin offered excellent coverage of this story.  If you aren’t sure what NSPIRG is, Ann Beringer offers an excellent, well-researched story as absent of bias as I think it is possible to be. (If you didn’t click the Read More link the first time you saw it, now is the time).  

The last time I remember a candidate taking a stand that a vocal group of individuals would disagree with was during the student spaces referendum a few years back. (Interestingly, Snow was one of the people who took a stand on that issue, too).

Vikram Rai has publicly stated his support for Eric’s position. At this time it is unknown if other candidates will agree.

Zimmerman issued a correction to her platform, promising to demand amendments to existing policy re: school cancellation.

Today was the residence hockey game, Howe won over Risley, 5-3.  Many candidates were in attendance, and it sounds like everyone had a great time.

Online debate is tomorrow, and I described how that’s going to work.  (actually, in 6 hours)

I discussed Student Appreciation Night last night, and as people woke up (around noonish) and took aspirin (around 30), news came in.  The consensus is that Kris Osmond did an awesome job.  He didn’t say a word about the election, but he also didn’t need to: successful events speak for themselves.  (Lisa weighed in on the night as well).

Every candidate was given a ticket to attend and the chance to volunteer.  Snow, Zimmerman, Burns, LeForte, Jennex, Evans, and of course Osmond volunteered (well done); Harris, Conrad, Simms, Rai, Horne attended (good plan);  Debo, Hobbs, Blake, and FPW were apparently not able to attend.  The latter candidates missed out on a great chance to get some face time with voters.  Hobbs in particular surprises me as typically Union commissioners attend, candidates or not.  Sources tell me Jennex in particular put in a long night spinning the roulette wheel and Burns gave up a work shift to volunteer.  Also of note, CRO Amyotte and some of her committee members put in a long day helping Osmond out.

Will Horne talked a little bit about his (and Meredith Evans’) experience with the music society.  The story is not an unfamiliar one: a somewhat sleepy society is shaken up and achieves a lot in a short period of time.  I’ve seen it happen a few times – Marine Bio, DalOUT come to mind – and I was part of it with the Computer Science Society (two Society of the Year awards in three years, bitches).  The success is typically due entirely to the hard work and long hours of a few people who Get Shit Done (heh, just noticed he used the same words, but I stand by them).  These people are often never happier than when working within their own society, but every now and then a few decide to join the DSU, and typically my advice is: let them.  I’m not saying it has to be THIS position, but find a way to let them contribute.

 Other candidates with updates include Rai,  Jennex, Hobbs, and Debogorski posted some more of his platform.

Slow day on punditry.ca – about 3,000 page views, though still a lot of comments.

These went out to candidates earlier, but Dal email is so incredibly painfully slow these days that I don’t think any of them have it.  So, here you go.  These are slightly modified to be briefer, so candidates should check the OFFICIAL rules sent via email.  The debate will start at 2pm and will finish at 4pm or when we run out of questions, whichever happens first.

This is a first for Dal, and I couldn’t find any one else whose done it, either.  Please bear with us as we sort things out.

Debate Rules, Guidelines, and Information

• The debate will be conducted through the chat forum at http://punditry.ca/features/online-debate  That page is open to candidates now, and will be open to the public about an hour before the debate begins so we can all come in and find our places, as it were.
• The chat will be “recorded”, and the transcript made available on punditry.ca
• During the debate, the discussion room will be locked down, with only the candidates, the questioner, and myself able to speak. Participants will send the message: “/raisehand” to indicate they would like to speak, and they will be called on in order.
• I (Mike Smit) will act as moderator.
• Candidates and participants will follow the rules, and I will use all technical means to ensure that happens. While we encourage healthy debate and questions from all participants, Participants will be kicked out of the discussion without hesitation if they are interfering with the debate.
• Each candidate WILL have limits placed on how much they can speak. This is to ensure fairness, but also to make sure things move along at reasonable speed. Word limits will be imposed; time limits exist implicitly: you have roughly as much time as it would take to type your word limit at 40 words per minute.
• A candidate can at any time send me a private message challenging the length of another candidate’s response.
• A candidate (or participant) can at any time send me a private message with any procedural questions or objections.  Abuse of the private messaging feature is not acceptable

• Order of debate

1. 1. Opening statements, 150 words
   2. 2 opening questions from moderator
   3. Questions from punditry.ca writers
   4. Questions from audience
   5. Closing Statements

• “Questions” may be in one of two forms:

1.  
   1.  Lightning Round Style (to take advantage of our unique platform):  Question is asked. Candidates respond simultaneously, firing off chat messages as much and as often as they want. They can address their opponents’ responses, or can keep talking. Regular rules of decorum are to be followed. Questioner may also participate. After conversation dies down, or after enough time has elapse, Moderator will call for “final thoughts”, and discussion ends after final messages from candidates.
   2. Forum Style (tried, tested, true): One candidate is invited to speak at a time, like the forums of the past week, and past DSU millenia.  75 word responses (order in which candidates answer will cycle), 35 word rebuttals.  Questioner can follow up, treated as new question.  All questions will be asked to all candidates.

• The questioner will decide which form they would like the candidates to answer using. I will use one of each style in my two opening questions to get people used to it.

• Passion is wonderful.  Douchebaggery isn’t.  Please show respect to the candidates and questioners.  Note that profanity will be censored out: it will appear to you like what you typed, but to everyone else it will be censored.

• This is not a DSU Elections sponsored OR endorsed event.  However, you are also not immune from their rules.

Oops, I wrote this, saved it, then went to bed… apparently forgetting to publish it.  My bad.  Here you go, apologies for the delay.

After 5 days on the campaign trail, here’s what’s happening.

• It’s a slow day, so to fill up some space I’ll share with you Mike Smit Elections Central.  From left to right: 1. new-ish IBM thinkpad nicely outfitted.  The built-in screen is used primarily for windows that monitor & configure the punditry.ca server.  This laptop is hooked up to the 22″ widescreen Dell monitor to the right.  You can see it’s a lot brighter than the other three screens, it is my primary workspace.  Right now I have 37 browser tabs open, 101 scratch text files (also tabbed), 6 excel spreadsheets, Photoshop, email, irc, and 2 alternate browsers used for testing.  The next screen is a 19″ Dell monitor showing a browser window with tabs to all candidate homepages & facebooks, set to refresh once every 4 hours.   The page displayed is the blog aggregation page, refreshing every 30 minutes.  It is powered by the laptop on the right, my old IBM thinkpad.  Its screen is used only for twitter aggregation, 30 minute refresh.  These latter two screens are also used for research, or as window space: when I write about candidate platforms, for example, I put the platforms up on a screen so I can read as I work.  I use two logitech wireless keyboard & mouse combos as input devices.  Obviously when I’m away from my desk at my REAL job the first laptop goes with me.  This picture is the perfect blend of tech geekiness and elections geekiness.

Mike's election headquarters

Part of the reason I haven’t reoffered my services to the DSU electorate is simply that I feel a majority of the fierce debates student politicians have are quite useless. For example, topics that have captivated the DSU exec and council lately include:

• What should the format of our website be? (This is a no-brainer, it should be something that is accessible to users on computers outside of Soviet Russia)
• Should we have one member at large on council, or three?
• Should we have a handbook for the recruitment committee?
• What should we order for food: Indian or Thai?

While important issues (like I expect of our annual budget) often pass by with little or no debate.

But today, he’s done it. An issue worth talking about. Now, not only is Mr. Snow a better writer than Ms. Zimmerman, there’s actually a difference between them worth discussing!

Eric’s latest facebook group (a bad idea in my opinion, I hate redundant groups) is used for him to voice his opposition to NSPIRG. While he doesn’t tie himself to the official petition, he does essentially say what their saying, with more diplomatic and politically correct words. I am however impressed at how strong his wording is.

Here is what he says he will do to take action on NSPIRG:

GIVING STUDENTS A CHOICE, THROUGH A REFERENDUM, ON THE FUTURE OF NSPIRG’S LEVY – It should be the choice of all students, not the DSU Executive or Council, to determine whether or not the levy for NSPIRG will continue. All students deserve to have a say.

ENSURING ACCOUNTABILITY FROM NSPIRG: EQUAL TREATMENT FOR ALL SOCIETIES – With or without a levy, NSPIRG has to be held accountable for its actions and the actions of its working group. Creating separate names for groups like SCAW or SMAC, with overlap in membership and resources, cannot continue to be used as a method of escaping accountability.

HOLDING INDIVIDUALS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS – A member of the NSPIRG staff has struck one of the DSU Executive. There have been accusations of vandalism in the SUB and across the Dalhousie campuses. While there is a due process to follow, holding individuals responsible for their actions is necessary if we are to have a safe student community.

I am surprised he hasn`t mentioned anything about kicking them out of the building. That is valuable space, and I`m sure there are lots of other societies that would be interested in getting some community space on campus.

What does Shannon say on the subject? Nothing. Neither her blog, website nor her facebook group say anything on the subject.

Either Eric is playing strategy here, or he really hates NSPIRG. The strategist in him likely knows that he is either in a tie or lagging closely behind his chief opponent. When you consider the fact that Shannon’s been passively working on this campaign for three years, I wouldn’t expect any opponent of her’s to be doing well either. The PIRG portion of your platform may just throw you over the top, Eric. Essentially, it all comes down to which side has more voters on it. Judging from the turnout at our AGM, NSPIRG has about half as many people willing to come out and support them than do those who are either undecided or in support of the STOPNSPIRG approach. The challenge, being this late in the game, is getting the word out with only about two full days left of campaigning.

I for one, cannot wait until this topic comes up in monday’s debate.

Post-post note: 

I realize that Eric was never silent about his feelings toward PIRG, but throughout the campaign he has been purposely diplomatic about NSPIRG,  not mentioning what most of us have assumed to be his true feelings. 

So the word clouds were fun, but I like to sink my teeth into a good, meaty platform and tear it to pieces.  That’s actually how MikeSmit.com got started with its DSU Election coverage.  This post covers only Zimmerman and Snow; this isn’t a slight toward Debogorski, he simply hasn’t finished his platform yet.  Depending on the timing, hopefully I can cover him as well.

It gets long, so I’ll offer a few awards and then move the discussion to after the jump.

• Hardest to mock: Snow
• Worst writing: Zimmerman
• Easiest for non-politico to understand: Zimmerman
• Most concrete ideas: Snow
• Lamest platform plank: demanding a written school cancellation policy which… already exists. (Zimmerman)
• Highest density of jargon: Snow
• Nicest summary: Zimmerman (most people aren’t going to read the 2000 word platform; she summarizes her key points on the first page of her website).

Read a detailed breakdown of both platforms at the Read More link.  Note that for the GOOD parts of their platforms, you’ll have to read their websites (Snow | Zimmerman), here I focus on the negative.

Read more…

Previously, on the DSU Elections:

• Advance polling: online voting will be available tomorrow (Friday the 13th) from noon until midnight.  No special permission is required to vote; all 15,000 voters have access.  Of course, you won’t be able to return and edit your ballot next week when the polls open again, but your vote will count like anyone else’s.  This is a first for Dal, and is being done because medical students are off next week.

• My personal standpoint is: I beg of you, don’t vote right away unless you absolutely must.  Wait until next week.  There are still 3 full days of campaigning left, including two presidential debates.

• Hey candidates, how does it make you feel that by this time tomorrow some percentage of the votes will be collected, yet the results will be completely unavailable to anyone for 6 days?  Typically I find candidates have trouble with the 2 hours between polls closing on Thursday and the results announcement, so watching them go the 140 hours should be amusing.

• By the way, tomorrow’s (Friday’s) presidential debate in the Grawood has been moved to Monday (2pm in the Grawood, according to an update on Snow’s website).  The online debate is still good-to-go for Sunday at 2pm.

• The Studley debate was covered in-depth here, including observations from Jen Bond and an incredibly detailed and well-written summary from Lisa.

• That said, regarding one of Lisa’s points re: policies and procedures versus consulting students… I think its a bit bizarre to pick one or the other, my suspicion is that Snow meant there was no reason you couldn’t do both (though obviously I have no idea what he actually said).  Regardless, of the two campaign promises, I’d take policies and procedures.  In 9 years of election campaigns, I’ve heard the “more student consultation” promise from about 153 candidates (i.e. all of them), and it carries no weight with me.  It’s a default, obvious promise.  Knowledge of policies and procedures is a measurable trait that is actually useful.  I’ve never heard a candidate promise LESS student consultation, while I have seen many demonstrate very little existing knowledge of policy.  Granted, policy isn’t a hot’n'sexy topic for most people, but I like it.

• Good job to Mark Hobbs for his defense of a momentarily speechless opponent against utterly bizarre and provably false accusations.

• Speaking of crazy, John Hillman posted some videos of the AGM.  I recommend Video #4 in particular, the crazy butterfly guy was everything they said he was and more.

• Today’s Gazette is the election edition; I hear basketball made the cover but the elections goodness is inside.  I am looking forward to the coverage; as you know, the Gazette is a bastion of accuracy and fact-checking, unlike punditry.ca where the lies and filth drip from the walls.  For now you need to be on campus to drink from its papery goodness, but when the online edition goes up some time in April I’ll be sure to let you know.

• If you missed the Election Candidate Video Awards or Mark’s discussion of DSU AGMs, go read.

• Student Appreciation Night is Friday night.  I’ll be sure to save column inches for that.

• Not much action on the candidate blogs.  Will Horne conceded my point from last night, and then I stopped reading. I kid, of course: I read with interest his thoughts on NSPIRG.  Re: DSU vs NSPIRG, fyi there have been relationship problems there for as long as I’ve been on campus.  Every few years things come to a head.  Obviously I agree this is not the way it should be, but just want to make you aware this is not a recent development.

• Re: “As a student I’ll say this: what I want is peace on the issue…and a glaringly obvious opt-out period.”  I don’t want to turn this into a page discussing the usefulness of NSPIRG, but I see inherent conflict in that statement.  NSPIRG has vigorously opposed the opt-out from day one.  In my day at least, every few years they would try to get out of it, typically by just not offering an opt-out period and seeing if anyone would notice.  If you pursue an improved opt-out process, you will not get peace.  
  Actually, I once tried to opt out.  I was doing an internship out of town, and emailed to ask how to do it.  They said I couldn’t.  Not being accustomed to taking “no” for an answer, I persisted.  They emailed me some heinous attachment that was very difficult to open and told me to fill out the form.  I did.  They said they wouldn’t send me money but I could come in person once I was back in town to pick it up.  I did.  They told me they couldn’t give me my money right then, but that I should come back.  I did.  The person who could help me wasn’t there.  I never did get my $2.  Remind me to send them an invoice.

• Per his blog, Eric Snow added items specific to graduate students to his platform.  This is remarkable on two levels: a) a candidate listened to students and updated their platform? Surprisingly, this is rare.  b) a candidate made grad-related issues part of their platform?  Normally that distinction is reserved for the graduate senator.  As a grad student I should be doing more to call candidates out on this issue, and I’m about to start.  If any other candidates have positions or thoughts on grad students, I’d recommend following Eric’s lead and sharing them, soon.

• 139 new comments, and more page views than yesterday (6500 from 900 unique visitors).