Live!
Sat 24 Feb 2018
- The award-winning student news website of Imperial College

Know something you shouldn't? Tell us, using our quick, 100% anonymous tip-off form!

Discussion

Complaint upheld by Elections Committee

The comments below are unmoderated submissions by Live! readers. The Editor accepts no liability for their content, nor for any offence caused by them. Any complaints should be directed to the Editor.
Feb 25 2003 00:12
 

One complaint has been upheld, while the other has been deferred.

http://live.cgcu.net/news/?id=640

Feb 25 2003 09:47
 

So from the diverse choice of three candidates, we're now only left with two. Hooray! And what if the disqualified candidate gets the majority of the votes? Do we get the runner-up? George 'hanging chad' Bush's election seem more understandable every day...

Feb 25 2003 10:06
 

"One complaint has been upheld, while the other has been dismissed"

Once again mister Lehman your ability to write things that are nearly true but not quite astounds me. As your article says the hearing of the complaint has been deffered, not dimissed. It is a very serious issue which may result in diciplinery action being taken against a senior union officer. There is no way that this matter will be "dismissed", unless of course a further review of the management structure of certain bars is undertaken :)

3. tom t   
Feb 25 2003 10:28
 

'Live! has decided not to release the name of the disqualified candidate until voting has ended. This is so as not prejudice any outcome in the event that the appeal is upheld.'

And in the event that the appeal is dismissed? I assume the publication of Mr. !"$?%$^%'s name would have no bearing on the situation??

I suggest that a new election is called for, I'm sure if enough students registered their concern, we could push for one. Referendum anyone ;-)

tom

4. Dan L   
Feb 25 2003 11:26
 

The rogue sailor,

First of all my surname has a double "n" at the end but that is a seperate issue.

I was told by the returning officer the second complaint had been thrown out. I later discovered this was not the case, but it was actually pending.

The article was altered when this information from an external source was bought to my attention. The abstract was not changed. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Also good to see you use the same ADSL provider as me, maybe you will tell us all what your real name is sometime..

Feb 25 2003 14:01
 

Another Ganesh-inspired farce...

Feb 25 2003 15:10
 

Hey I think I've spotted a pattern: calibre of candidates goes down, number of complaints goes up. I hear there are others in the offing...

Feb 25 2003 16:12
 

Now every Presidential candidate (plus at least one non-Pres) has had a complaint filed against them.

8. Beci   
Feb 25 2003 18:45
 

What's the candidate who's the "at least one non-pres" standing for?

Feb 26 2003 23:18
 

Beci, knowing ICU, probably his/her own interests.

Feb 28 2003 17:18
 

I voted for this Ameet guy- especially because I was appalled by thebehaviour of Mustafa- if you union hacks disqualified him than the election must be re run as many many votes have been "wasted". This is a total abuse of democracy to disqualify a candidate on the elction day and not inform the general student public. I don't give a damn if Beci or anyother of the Union hack layabouts can't be bothered- you MUSt either re run the election or disqualify the disqualification. If it is too much work for you beci you can always resign and let someone willing to do the job (and enjoy the perks too) do it!

11. tom t   
Feb 28 2003 17:33
 

IC student:

if you knew anything about Union politics, you'd know that Beci is actually a Wye student, therefore not a South Ken hack.

Also, Mustafa is against the disqualification of Ameet, but due to the Election committee not meeting frequently enough, rules must be followed, leading to his disqualification.

Most of all, people would listen to you if were prepared to put a name to your comments.

Got it?

Feb 28 2003 17:40
 

One of the benefits of the STV voting system is that it allows you to cast your vote multiple times for different candidates in order of preference. Thus, the system can deal perfectly well with the disqualification of a candidate - it will simply be as if that candidate has been eliminated and anyone who had put that person as their first preference will have their vote added to the pile of their second preference candidate.

Feb 28 2003 18:05
 

Ameet's disqualification (which would not have been necessarily had the Returning Officer acted earlier) was one of the reasons I refused to sign "that" declaration.

Closed This discussion is closed.

Please contact the Live! Editor if you would like this discussion topic re-opened.

 
Live!
Live!