Back to TheU.ca
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Banned Users List
Usergroups
RSS Feeds
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log inTheU.ca Forum Index - General Discussion - Election Recall - Re Vote to take place next week - Reply to topic
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
|
I don't know much about programming, but looking at what was discounted VS what was counted it's pretty obvious that anything to do with spoiled affect the votes. It might be if I spoiled the first option it discounted it for everything after that, or if I spoiled for the second it counted my votes for everything but that one. Who knows? Chances are whoever designed this old system is long gone, along with those who asked him to make it for them. The point is, they've fessed up, they threw it out and they're redoing it. That's the right thing to do in this case. I didn't expect them to, I'll be honest. But they're doing it and bashing them beyond that isn't fair. If we're going to critique the things we think they do badly, then we should be willing to support them when they do things right, and in my opinion this is one of them. |
|
Time to set some stories straight, folks. 1. The election has admittedly been messed up by The U and a recall declared. This was human error. No point in squabbling over all of the crazy numbers and no spoiled ballots and whatnot: the entire thing is void, and will be redone. I also hear that it will be redone with paper ballots, seeing as the student population has lost faith in the use of the election system. It happens. 2. All of this talk of the Burke slate being kicked out is very interesting. Seeing as I was the Chair of Council at the time who made the decision to toss the Burke slate, I can unequivocally vouch for the fact that nothing the Mason slate did violated any of the rules. If you thought you brought them up to someone, they never reached me, and far as our documentation goes, the Mason slate did nothing to warrant disqualification. 3. The problem in The U is this, as I told the Weekly today in an interview: the executive take the credit when things go well, and the buck gets passed when they falter. The Chair's Office has been absolutely decimated over the past few years since it was removed as an executive position, and the majority of Council for whatever reason, every year, forgets the power they hold. Don't get me wrong, I have seen some fantastic councilors walk through and there are some fantastic ones this year, yet the majority miss the boat. The U needs a serious look at how it structures itself that unfortunately I was not able to help with during my time in the Chair's Office, which has become a black hole for anyone hoping to get involved with The U. _________________ If I am a hero today, that is in question again tomorrow. I am never relieved of responsibility. |
|
Jimmy Big Ears
X-talk mobster  Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 3256 Location: St. Francis Xavier University    votes: 38 View user's profile |
Saorse, I don't quite follow. What's the situation with the Chair now that's causing problems? I also hope for your sake that you are not actually not still in Lane Hall. That is just an old location from before, right? PS Where is your name from? _________________ "Ah, sleek vigilant puma. Principal of the mountains." -Seymour Skinner. |
|
Jimmy Big Ears wrote: Saorse, I don't quite follow. What's the situation with the Chair now that's causing problems?
I also hope for your sake that you are not actually not still in Lane Hall. That is just an old location from before, right? PS Where is your name from? Definitely not still in Lane Hall. I suppose that shows how often I post on here. The situation, in my eyes, is this: 3 years ago, the Chair of Council was removed as an executive position. Now before I get going, I'm not assuming that the fix is to make it as such again: I'm not quite sure what the solution is. In any event, the Chair went from receiving an honorarium in the amount of a year's tuition for 12 months employment to an honorarium of $1250 while I was there for 8 months of work, which meant that he or she is no longer here over the summer months. Now... Since then, the Chair's Office has become, again, in my opinion, the most discredited part of The U. I'll be the first to admit that during my time there I lost inspiration to work as well, so I am by no means portraying myself as a saint, yet this is the picture. The executive stay around for the summer and plan out the entire year without the presence of the individual responsible for "keeping them in line"... making sure they adhere to the rules, follow the by-laws, etc. Then, in September, Council comes in (who hold collectively the complete source of power over The U's agenda) and the Chair comes in, both of whom who have not been here for the summer, and both of whom by this time are jumping in 4 months late. The Chair then will find himself in a position to say no to an executive member for whatever reason... fining them for not showing up to meetings, trying to do something in Council that the by-laws do not allow, or stepping out of their jurisdiction. When the Chair cries foul, the typical response goes like, "We've been planning this for months," "I work my ass off up here," or my favourite, "Let's change the by-laws." On one hand, we can't blame the executive... who wouldn't use the system this way when it's been like this since before they were here? For the past three years, the Chair has been losing power, responsibility and has become the scapegoat more and more for when The U fails, all seemingly since it was removed as an executive position. Council, while there are some fantastic individuals who have served and who are currently serving, serve the year without any true knowledge to the potential they hold (possibly due to a lack of training) and in many instances become nothing more than a rubber stamp. As a result, the following happens: 60% voter turnout, the executive takes the praise. 45% voter turnout, and it's the Chair's Office who wears the mess even though the executive have been constantly chipping away at the Chair's responsibilites during the election. I'm also not trying to blanket all of the executive as being responsible. There have been some fantastic executive in my history with The U, yet as seems to be the case with every organization, there are some holding its progress back. Maybe some of Council is also to blame for not taking a more active stand on issues that matter. Part of it is also the fact that it is very easy to become disillusioned as the Chair seeing all of this happen and one simply at some point throws their hands in the air and says, "Wow." The blame is to be spread all around: the problem is that it is not, and no one has stepped up to the plate and tackled an issue that, while it may not mean much to the average student, causes a lot of confusion on 4th floor. If I could go back, I'm sure I'd do things differently, yet here we are. Like I said, I don't know how to fix it... yet that's my take on it. I'm sure as a former Chair, my opinion's a wee bit biased. My name comes from an alternative spelling of the word "Saoirse," which means "Freedom" in Gaelic... I just remember some old pizza guy telling me about it once as I waited for a slice and I've been glued to the word ever since. _________________ If I am a hero today, that is in question again tomorrow. I am never relieved of responsibility. |
|
Apocalypse wrote: Sam Mason won Burke House President not because he had the most votes, because he got the opposing candidates kicked out of the election. At that point it's yes or no, and the other team said fuck this shit. If this is the way the union works, we don't want to work for them. The reason they were kicked out is because of "offensive" posters. The other candidates were apparently warned, warned again, forfeit, only the person who was suppose to warn them (and Sam Mason's neighbor at the time) didn't. Noone knew what was going on until the returning officer let them know they were out. Horribly misinformed... Nice try though. |
|
Apocalypse
The Director  Joined: 22 Nov 2007 Posts: 693 Location: [CLASSIFIED]  votes: 4 View user's profile |
Saorse wrote: Time to set some stories straight, folks.
All of this talk of the Burke slate being kicked out is very interesting. Seeing as I was the Chair of Council at the time who made the decision to toss the Burke slate, I can unequivocally vouch for the fact that nothing the Mason slate did violated any of the rules. If you thought you brought them up to someone, they never reached me, and far as our documentation goes, the Mason slate did nothing to warrant disqualification. Brandon Nunn is who I spoke with.. He was chief returning officer at the time and who I was directed to. That explains a lot though, if he was the wrong person to talk to. Jimmy Big Ears wrote: I'm looking out for the four horsemen.
Those are MY horsemen @ Pedal: What was the similar issue the TSG had? This would help us understand what may have happened with the union. Nisher89 wrote: Horribly misinformed... Nice try though. I was in burke that year, and knew all involved personally... I know exactly what I'm talking about.
_________________ Man is the lowest-cost, 150-pound, nonlinear, all-purpose computer system which can be mass-produced by unskilled labor. |
|
Apocalypse wrote: @ Pedal: What was the similar issue the TSG had? This would help us understand what may have happened with the union. Server died. Flicked it over to a new Server that wasn't designed to do what the new one had been chosen for, had massive software and hardware issues for the better part of a week. |
|
The 0 and 1 spoiled is significant from a computer science standpoint as well. Lets look at possible scenario's that could lead to that error. #1: The software did not record spoiled ballots #2: The software only recorded spoiled ballots when X condition was met #3: The software recorded spoiled ballots, however the data was overwritten #4: The software recorded spoiled ballots, however there was type error. #1 is obviously out, because it did record ONE spoiled ballot. #2 is possible, but unlikely, because it implies that whatever condition X might be, only one person in the school did it. #3 needs some explaining. Depending on the language of the software, and exactly how it is functioning, the following line of code likely exists. spoiled++ (add one to the spoiled count) It is possible to rewrite this (and it was required in older languages) as spoiled = spoiled + 1. Now lets say for sake of argument, someone goofed in the code and forgot to include part. spoiled = 1 In other words, if one person spoiled, the value is one, otherwise the value is zero. This would account fully for the error, so its our first really possible scenario. #4: Look at the bool(ean) data type, which represents a simple switch. 0 or 1, false or true, yes or no. It is possible that at some point, the spoiled variable was set as a boolean (maybe it was used somewhere else in the code). Hence, the 1 or 0, as it was above, would actually be a yes or no value by accident. 'Yes, ballots were spoiled in this field', or 'no, ballots were not spoiled in this field' The problem is that none of these explain the bug. We know for a fact there were spoiled fields in all cases because people have confessed to spoiling every spot. At this point, you are getting into the realm of ridiculous (so many people spoiled their ballot that there was an overflow and it became negative, which could first occur at 32767 votes), extremely poor coding (three sections failed independently of each other, or the whole thing just failed outright), or someone fudged the numbers intentionally to rig the election. I can't see any other scenario that would produce these results. _________________ Keeper of the True Hub. Accept no imitations. |
|
Jimmy Big Ears
X-talk mobster Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 3256 Location: St. Francis Xavier University votes: 38 View user's profile |
Thanks, Hal. This is what I was looking for, computer-wise. So it is possible that the code failed? I know little about programming but it seems like #3 would fit the bill for producing the number '1' in the spoiled column the best. Saorse it is perfectly possible for a position to hold less influence by its occupant not being present - one thing history (or anthropology, or others for that matter) shows is that someone in part wields influence through being present to monitor things and by having people be accustomed to listening to their concerns and following their instructions. It seems like restoring the year-round Chair would be a logical step. Another nice step would be a rule that the Chair could not be someone who shared a floor with the SU president (or something similar) but that might be hard to do. _________________ "Ah, sleek vigilant puma. Principal of the mountains." -Seymour Skinner. |
|
Jimmy Big Ears wrote: Thanks, Hal. This is what I was looking for, computer-wise.
So it is possible that the code failed? I know little about programming but it seems like #3 would fit the bill for producing the number '1' in the spoiled column the best. Saorse it is perfectly possible for a position to hold less influence by its occupant not being present - one thing history (or anthropology, or others for that matter) shows is that someone in part wields influence through being present to monitor things and by having people be accustomed to listening to their concerns and following their instructions. It seems like restoring the year-round Chair would be a logical step. Another nice step would be a rule that the Chair could not be someone who shared a floor with the SU president (or something similar) but that might be hard to do. Bingo. While it might mean shelling out a bit more of an honorarium, and adding more responsibility to the Chair, it is definitely an option worth throwing around. One cannot exactly logically expect to keep all of Council around all summer, yer the Chair would be an interesting start. _________________ If I am a hero today, that is in question again tomorrow. I am never relieved of responsibility. |
|
I suggest to attend the council meeting tomorrow and ask appropriate questions. |
|
I'll explain #2 for you a bit better then Jimmy  . Computers work based on logic structures, namely If X, do Y. In programming, it is extremely simple to include an instruction inside the wrong spot. For example, examine the following pseudo code.
If no option is checked, do the following { If 'Spoiled is checked, Add one to spoiled count } Seems fairly legitimate, right? If the person has checked nothing, then and only then if the spoiled ballot is checked, invalidate the ticket. This way people can't both record a vote and spoil. Except that both conditions can not be true. If nothing is checked, the spoiled option obviously is not checked. If something is checked, it will skip the instruction because it fails the first condition. Now, this failure is obvious, there are only two conditions. When you consider that programs can contain hundreds of thousands of these conditions, and testing every possibility is almost (but not quite) impossible, tracking down an error like this becomes extremely difficult. So again, I'm not going to join the conspiracy theorists just yet. There are technical explanations which would explain the evidence, and some are fairly probable. All I am saying is there are only a select handful of scenario's which produce the result. _________________ Keeper of the True Hub. Accept no imitations. |
|
Apocalypse wrote: Nisher89 wrote: Horribly misinformed... Nice try though.
I was in burke that year, and knew all involved personally... I know exactly what I'm talking about. Living in the same building doesn't mean you got the whole story. I asked them about it last night 2 of the three people who ran said the same thing as I did. So again... Get your facts straight. |
|
Jimmy Big Ears
X-talk mobster Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 3256 Location: St. Francis Xavier University votes: 38 View user's profile |
Ah. I think I understand; I was aware of the basic logical structure component. So what you're saying (with both of your posts) is that #2 is unlikely, since someone did (purportedly) succeed in spoiling a ballot. Was I right then in thinking that #3 currently seems like the most probable cause or way off? _________________ "Ah, sleek vigilant puma. Principal of the mountains." -Seymour Skinner. |
|
Basically yes, Jimmy. Either only one person managed to figure out the combination of conditions which rendered a ballot spoiled, and only in one section, or it basically can't be #2. _________________ Keeper of the True Hub. Accept no imitations. |
|
Senther
Xtalk Drifter  Joined: 29 Jun 2006 Posts: 2296 Location: The Deadlights  votes: 42 View user's profile |
Without the source, you can't say anything about what caused the error. There are dozens of ways it could have been produced. My money is on array overflow. _________________ To avoid complications, she never kept the same address In conversation, she spoke just like a baroness |
|
The #1 cause for failure is human error |
|
While it is true you could never guess what specific error triggered it, you could certainly theorize as to the type of error. But I think this is pretty well beating a dead horse anyway. _________________ Keeper of the True Hub. Accept no imitations. |
|
Senther
Xtalk Drifter Joined: 29 Jun 2006 Posts: 2296 Location: The Deadlights votes: 42 View user's profile |
I agree, I just disagreed with your statement: "I can't see any other scenario that would produce these results". There are many, many ways to get an incorrect value from a variable: I've probably stumbled into a hundred or so, and there are likely lots more waiting to trip me up down the line. My problem is that you choose 4 of these at random, then seemingly dismiss them, while offering the possibility that the polls were rigged. A non-technical reader (with no background to dispute what you've posted) could mistakenly think that you've somehow produced evidence that the screw-up was not due to the polling software (which you have not). _________________ To avoid complications, she never kept the same address In conversation, she spoke just like a baroness |
|
Right, but I wasn't so much looking at errors, as much as I was classifications of errors that could record an improper value. What I was trying to get at was more the following: There really are only 2 possible scenario's at the broadest point #1: It recorded the correct value #2: It did not record the correct value Now, lets break down #2 down, we know it was not correct. A: It recorded no value period B: It recorded no or incorrect values because the conditions were incorrectly programmed (which would in turn cover problematic loops, if..then statements, bad select case) C: It recorded incorrect values because of some concern of memory (overflow, the variable being written to by accident, whether by bad programming or an unforeseeable error, it was stored in the wrong variable) D: It recorded the correct values, however some error caused the data to be stored in the wrong format, which lead to a type casting error. I think that pretty much covers all of the scenario's that are worth considering. My point was though that you can eliminate a number of possibilities thanks to that one vote that managed to spoil. It obviously can't be A, period. SOMETHING managed to be recorded. B is unlikely given that it only occurred once out of the entire student body (5000 repetitions would have produced the correct conditions more than once). Possible? Yes (the first vote recorded properly, others did not, which failed an if clause somewhere). Likely? No. C is absolutely possible, in fact, I would go so far as to say probable. If one were so inclined, you could go through each possible case within C and eliminate them one at a time (Integer overflow would be INCREDIBLY unlikely, and if it was overflow of another type, we have bigger problems). D could also produce a 1, so it too is possible, and it is conceivable to see a spoiled ballot check box being stored in Boolean (true or false, 1 or 0, on or off to lay people). The point I was trying to make was that the vast majority of errors fall into these categories. Perhaps I didn't clarify that in my original post, so I apologize. _________________ Keeper of the True Hub. Accept no imitations. |
TheU.ca Forum Index - General Discussion - Election Recall - Re Vote to take place next week - Reply to topic
