|
|
|
Yes, that's my sister, and yes, she is engaged.
And no, I didn't *really* find out on Facebook, she called me.
Congrats to Meg & Chris!
If anyone reading this site has embarassing stories or pictures, I have started collecting. :D (Don't tell Megan, though, she regularly stands behind me with sharp scissors.)
(Just kidding, of course, obviously she'll see this page.)
view 1 comments - add your comments
Sorry for the delay, I was having trouble getting electrons into my electronics. The problem is solved; here now, the betting pool results.
... wow man, did I ever get smacked around. I called VP SL wrong, and was off by enough on all of the margins to feel ashamed. And Senate... wow, my margins were nowhere near the studied indifference voters displayed toward the candidates, and I called one winner wrong. Luckily for me, most other people did just as poorly.
To calculate the results, I took the official results from www.dsu.ca, removed the spoiled votes, and calculated the percentages. I then subtracted the guesses from the actuals. For 2 candidate races, I took the difference between the pundit's guess for the winner, and the winner's actual results. This was the total error. As I do for all >2 candidate races every year, I calculated all of the differences, summed them, and then divided the total error by 2 to prevent the greater room for error from skewing the results.
The overall winner is "Anonymous #2". Congratulations... they didn't enter a name, so I don't even know who they are. Chris 'No One Will Ever Live Up To My Accomplishments' Ide placed second, and I somehow came in third, but I don't deserve it. All those with total error under 100 are shown here.
| Name | Total Error |
|---|
| Anon 2 | 39.8 | | Chris I | 42.1 | | MikeSmit.com | 46.8 | | Keith S | 47.2 | | Will D | 49.7 | | Anon 1 | 51.9 | | Election farce | 52.9 | | Jae-Con | 56.8 | | Mike P | 70.4 | | Eric S | 71.3 | | AEB | 72.8 | | DalStudent FTW | 75.8 | | Lisa B. | 76.9 | | Facebook App | 77.8 | | effdemocracy | 91.5 | | Malcolm X | 92.1 |
President
Amusingly, the Facebook application predicted this result, almost exactly. The best individual was C Ide. I ranked a dismal 11th, with total error of 11.74 (mostly due to my optimism regarding Hillman). Worst error was 60.
| Rank | Name | Error |
|---|
| 1 | Facebook App | 3.5 | | 2 | C Ide | 5 | | 3 | Jae-Con | 5.6 | | 4 | Anon 1 | 6.2 | | 5 | Will D | 6.3 | | 11 | MikeSmit.com | 11.74 |
VP Internal
Eric S called this to within .2%, well done. Anon 2 also did very well. In fact, most pundits did very well, with 10 guesses being within 3%. That was enough to push me to 15th. Clearly I had no idea what I was talking about. Worst was 22.
The Facebook app again called it to within 2.1%; in fact, the Facebook app did well for three exec positions (best overall), but was wildly off for both the Senate and the Referendum.
| Rank | Name | Error |
|---|
| 1 | Eric S | 0.2 | | 2 | Anon 2 | 0.8 | | 3 | Will D | 1.8 | | 4 | Keith S | 1.8 | | 5 | Malcolm X | 1.8 | | 6 | Facebook | 2.1 | | 15 | MikeSmit.com | 7.8 |
VP Student Life
I called this one completely wrong, which put me at 15th. I wasn't alone, though, a lot of pundits had Ali winning. Worst error was 28%.
| Rank | Name | Error |
|---|
| 1 | Keith S | 0.61 | | 2 | Anon 2 | 0.61 | | 3 | Jae-Con | 2.4 | | 4 | Anon 1 | 2.6 | | 5 | AEB | 5.6 | | 15 | MikeSmit.com | 13.3 |
Senate
Mike P gets it within 6, and getting it within 11 is good enough to get me 4th. Finally, a top 5 finish for me!
The worst error here was 78.
| Rank | Name | Error |
|---|
| 1 | Mike P | 6.0 | | 2 | Chris I | 9.8 | | 3 | Eric S | 9.9 | | 4 | MikeSmit.com | 10.8 | | 5 | AEB | 12.6 |
HSA Referendum
This is the only race where I actually came close, and its the referendum, which is why I say I don't deserve the third place overall... seriously boring race to call. That said, the worst guess was off by 40%.
| Rank | Name | Error |
|---|
| 1 | Election farce | 1.0 | | 2 | Anon 2 | 1.0 | | 3 | effdemocracy | 1.0 | | 4 | MikeSmit.com | 3.0 |
view 4 comments - add your comments
The Gazette beat me to this by like 3 hours, and it was posted to this site in the comments an hour ago. My apologies; I was in the area and decided at the last minute to stop by the Grawood to see how things were going.
These are the winners; detailed results to follow.
President
Courtney Larkin
VP Internal
Dan Boyle
VP Education
Mark Coffin
VP Student Life
Kris Osmond
Senate
Kaylyn Fraser
Eric Snow
Jonathan Hughes
Graduate Senate
Yannick Tremblay
HSA Referendum
Yes (Passed)
view 24 comments - add your comments
About half an hour to go until voting closes; 2 hours after that, the results. Looks like voter turnout is going to be around 16%.
I'll try to get the results up here as soon as they are officially published by the CRO.
Just to respond more visibly to a question a commenter asked: no, I can't see the results. This is so people don't spend their time trying to parse my words trying to figure out if I am implying something about the results. I know nothing. Since I know nothing, I cannot be accused of dropping hints. :)
(History lesson: During one of the first years we ran online elections, the elections committee had real-time access to results. They intended to keep them confidential, but worked leaked out, spread fast, and accusations were levied that this information interfered with the results. Though no policy was passed regarding this, the decision was made that no one would see the results until voting closed, and that has been the convention ever since.)
Due to my role with the elections comittee, I can see the results as soon as the polls close. Due to the separation between my coverage here and that role, I will only publish the results that show up on the DSU website.
view 15 comments - add your comments
If the first election day is boring for everyone... the second one is even worse. In about 17 hours, the results will be announced.
Until then, let's entertain ourselves by talking about voter turnout. As of right now, we're a few votes shy of 2,000. I can remember days when the DSU voter turnout was around 5% - less than 1,000 people. I don't mean a decade I go, I mean like... 2003. 2004 saw high voter turnout (23%, if my memory is still with me). Since then we've levelled off in the 18-21% range. This year we might not break 20%. Why?
An email today went out to all students, reminding them to vote. Every year since 2004, when that email was first sent out, we've seen a major spike in the numbers. I don't have the 2004 numbers on me, but for the past 4 years, this is what the votes per hour looks like:
I've annotated it with when the bulk emails were sent out each year. You can see a BIT of spike in 2008, but not much, especially compared to previous years. It also drops much faster, another indication that the bulk email had little effect. Why? My guesses include:- Tremendous advertising work by the Elections Committee. Everyone had already heard about it by the first day, and those who wanted to voted on the first day. The spike at around 4pm on Tuesday supports this theory, as that came after a major push by the EC over Facebook and through societies.
- I understand the subject said "DSU Dispatch"; perhaps people are conditioned to delete those.
- Generally lower levels of interest among students at large; the result is they see the email, and can't be bothered. Last year's might have been artificially high because the Spaces Referendum raised the profile of the DSU among students.
- Fewer candidates. Less interesting selections. My own Union elections happened 2 weeks ago; I didn't vote. I went to the elections website, read all the profiles, and just didn't care who won. And I *never* miss a chance to vote, I voted every year at Dal, even before my DSU involvement.
Regardless, this drop in turnout worries me - if there are relatively more "DSU insiders" and friends of candidates voting, and fewer "everyman"-types voting, that's going to completely screw up my predictions. If you throw out a lot of the not-involved vote, Osmond will win by a few percent, Larkin will still win but not by as much, Hillman won't do as well as I expected, VAJ will still lose, HSA will do better, and I have no earthly idea what will happen with Senate (dsu-insiders are more likely to pick 3 candidates, friends are more likely to pick 1 candidate, and those not-involved are unpredictable... no idea what that means).
I've also graphed cumulative turnout per-hour (with the overnight hours lumped together a bit).
That shows that despite a good showing late on the first day, we're tracking low relative to previous years.
If history is any indicator, that means the aftermath will see a lot of finger pointing. Tradition is that the Elections Committee will be blamed.
I'm not sure who the leading authority on DSU elections is, but I'm pretty sure any list of the top 10 includes me. If you are a candidate for that list, you already know that the primary factors in voter turnout include a) level of the Union's engagement and visibility with students throughout the year, b) the number of candidates, c) the visibility of candidates, and d) the level of controversy. The Student Spaces referendum had turnout of 27%, and that was controversial and highly visible; also, its impact on everyone was clear and immediate. The year DSU elections turnout hit 23%, there were 25 candidates and a referendum question about DalOut.
The Elections Committee, which every year tries their damndest to get out the vote, can increase the number by some percentage, but they can only work with what they are given. Few candidates, low visibility on Carleton and in residences... it's a tough situation. So if you hear someone blame the EC for the voter turnout, I suggest you ignore them. Voter turnout is everyone's responsibility.
view 13 comments - add your comments
There was no day 8 wrap-up. There was almost none today either, because I don't have much to talk about.
On the off-chance you haven't voted, do it now.
The first day of voting is quiet for everyone but the elections committee. They spend the day whipping the vote, setting up the poll clerks, dealing with bitchy & nervous candidates, and personally contacting everyone at Dal to remind them to vote (or so it seems). Bless their tired little hearts.
What that means, though, is there's not a lot to talk about. The news on MikeSmit.com today was my discussion with a user named "Gregorian" about voter apathy, in the comments on the platforms. Jenny Cooper and AEB offered consolation to the (at minimum) 7 people who will lose Thursday night.
In case you haven't heard, the elections committee is running a survey on how people heard about the election, and how they got informed. "MikeSmit.com" wasn't a possible answer, but I'm hoping for a lot of write-in responses. :)
At 9:38pm tonight, the 1000th voter logged in. The year-over-year trends say we're currently higher than in 2005, and well within reach of 2006 & 2007. With 2 days to go, anything could happen to voter turnout.
So, candidates, relax, there's nothing you can do until Thursday. Everyone else, vote early, vote often.
view 0 comments - add your comments
I've compiled your predictions and my predictions. I need to remind you that this is not endorsement, this is not my wish list; rather, this is a read on what is going to happen over the next 3 days. I have no particular confidence in the percentages, though I am reasonably confident about the winners I chose.
A total of 19 readers sent me predictions; I've presented them in graph form to save time and space. Not everyone filled out every position. (Update: I've received several submissions since; I'll include those when I calculate a winner, but I'm not editing the post.)
I really have no grand language to put around this, so, uh, here they are.
Voter Turnout
I have it at 21.3%; the average of the predictions was 20.9%, the maximum was 28%, and the minimum was 13%.
President
Me: Larkin. I have it Larkin (40%), Gault (35%), Hillman (20%), Debogorski (5%).
Peanut Gallery: Larkin. 12 said Larkin, 6 said Gault, one said Hillman.
It looks like we'll most likely have a woman as president, for the first time since Galarneau was elected in 2002 (she served until October 2003).
Everyone has Larkin and Gault very close; the following picture demonstrates this, though it is hard to see much more. The third from the last column (in all images) is what the Facebook application predicts.
VP Internal
Me: Boyle, 61%-39% over Jones.
Peanut Gallery: Boyle, say 16, compared to 2 who say Jones. Most call it closer than I do (57%-43%, on average).
Boyle ran the better campaign, by far. Jones, despite a strong base of support, has alienated some members of the Young Liberals, a group likely to vote. They are splitting the DSU insider vote, and my read of the landscape is Boyle is coming out ahead there. The only question for me is by how much.
VP Student Life
Me: Krista, 54-46 over Kris.
Peanut Gallery: Tied. 9 say Kris, 9 say Krista. Interestingly, 7 have it within 5%, but 9 are predicting margins of victory greater than 10%. It covers the spectrum - some have Kris by 40, others Krista by 40.
Hard call, but I think Krista takes it. She's run a good campaign, she's demonstrated she is qualified to hold the job, and besides that she'll benefit from the 'lawl need change' vote and frankly she's young, female, and cute. For the record, every time in the last 5 years a woman has been in this race, a woman has won.
Senate
Me: Snow (32), Fraser (20), Christofi (17), Mason (17), Hughes (14). I'm taking the easy way out and putting Mason and Christofi at a tie. Whether or not Mason gets a vote depends on Sexton turnout.
Peanut Gallery: First, everyone seemed to have a REALLY hard time getting 5 numbers to add up to 100 (I fixed them). Second, how the hell do I present these results? Ok. 13 people made predictions. 13 think Snow gets a seat, and 12 think he takes the largest number of votes. 12 think Christofi gets a seat, and 9 think he comes in second. 7 think Fraser gets a seat. 6 think Mason gets a seat. 1 thinks Hughes gets a seat.
HSA Referendum
Me: Yes, 68-32%.
Peanut Gallery: Yes. On average, 65-35, but it ranged from 87.5% yes to 51% yes.
I'm fairly certain it is going to pass, but not certain by how much. The immediacy of advocating in Halifax will help it with voters at large, who historically have been far more likely to vote no in referenda than DSUers are. However, its support among DSU insiders is not unanimous. In the end, I just picked some numbers.
view 14 comments - add your comments
The websites are down, Facebook groups are disbanded, posters are in a dumpster... at this point the die is cast, and it doesn't land for 3 more days.
This is a last call for predictions for the election outcome. You can get details and instructions at the original post. I'm finalizing my own predictions, then I'll look at your predictions, and then I'll share them with the world.
view 0 comments - add your comments
|
|
|
|
- Word of the Day
- vituperation
1. The act or an instance of speaking abusively to or about.
2. Sustained and severely abusive language.
- [archives]
|
|
