Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

TCU elections voided amid alleged corruption

Published: Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Updated: Thursday, April 9, 2009 09:04

The results of the freshman Tufts Community Union (TCU) Senate elections have been voided after members of the Elections Commission (ECOM) deemed the outcome tainted by potential candidate corruption.

ECOM decided to nullify the contest after receiving a complaint just before midnight that several candidates had encouraged their peers to exploit a technological glitch and cast a second ballot.

"The actual substance of the complaint is there were many candidates who were publicly encouraging members of the [community] to vote multiple times," ECOM Chair Adam Weldai, a senior, told the Daily early this morning.

An unidentified ECOM member submitted the allegations, which prompted the rest of ECOM – the student who filed the complaint did not take part in official deliberations – to enter a closed-door hearing shortly after the election wrapped up at midnight.

After the meeting, which lasted approximately one hour, ECOM decided to hold a new election, which will take place on Monday.

The charges stem from a glitch in the voting software, which is sponsored by the outside server Votenet and allegedly allowed freshmen to access a ballot multiple times between midnight and 1:10 a.m. on Wednesday.

Weldai is currently operating under the assumption that even if students logged in twice, only one of their ballots counted.

"They should not have counted more than once," he said. "If the system worked correctly, which we assume it did, every vote counted once."

Still, he was unable to say with certainty that no vote was counted multiple times.

"We have no way of verifying that," he said. "That's why these results should be inconclusive and are being deemed invalid."

Even if the system did not accept more than one vote per student, the candidates' alleged actions have raised ethical concerns.

"Candidates were publicly taking advantage of [the glitch] and encouraging people to vote twice so they would win by unethical methods," Weldai said.

But Weldai said that since the complaint refers to general patterns rather than specific conduct, ECOM will not investigate candidates' actions further.

"There was not a specific person who was named in these complaints," he said.

TCU President Duncan Pickard declined to comment this morning, and TCU Treasurer Matt Shapanka would only say that he supports a clean election.

"I think that as long as ECOM is doing everything they can to ensure a fair election, I think that's what the freshman class deserves," Shapanka said.

Despite the charges, Weldai said that he does not foresee anybody being excluded from running in Monday's contest.

According to Weldai, the alleged corruption was so pervasive that if ECOM were to exclude offenders among the 13 candidates who are vying for seven open seats, there would not be enough left to have a contested election.

"We want to give each and every candidate an equal opportunity and a level playing field to have this specific election be fair and proper," he said.

A Daily investigation this morning turned up some of the Facebook messages in question.

"It seems that, due to an error in the Ecom website, that [sic] we are free to vote again. Please support the candidates," one candidate said in a message to members of a Facebook group supporting general participation in the election.

The candidate, whose name is being withheld since he is only one of several whose actions are coming under scrutiny, told the Daily that it was not his intention to encourage corruption. Instead, he said that he had heard about a voting glitch and wanted to make sure everybody had their ballots counted.

"I was told that there was a voting error and that the votes were somehow not accurate," he said.

His initial message went out at 1:54 p.m., and at 3:01 he rescinded it in a separate message in which he claimed that all votes would only be counted once.

But in another message, this time to a group for his supporters, the candidate was more direct. "Due to a voting error in the Ecom website, we are free to vote a second time, with all the previous ballots still counting. Please vote again!" he said.

Freshman Kate de Klerk, a current senator and a candidate for reelection, expressed surprise at the allegations of corruption. She said she suspects that candidates were not acting with ill intent.

"My feeling is if they were encouraging people to vote more than once, it was to make sure people's votes were actually getting counted," she said.

While rumors spread throughout the day about voting glitches, Weldai said that ECOM never officially told any of the candidates about any problems. As such, he said that all electronic communications to supporters represented unconfirmed suspicions on the part of the candidates.

"There was no public voting error," Weldai said. "Any and all information that these candidates put out in their messages came from these candidates."

While yesterday's controversy threw the freshman contest into turmoil, other classes emerged unscathed since their senators had already been chosen in uncontested elections.

Each class is supposed to have seven senators, but only four current juniors expressed interest in serving next year, so the other three seats dropped down to current sophomores.

As a result, next year there will be 10 junior senators. Since exactly 10 candidates expressed interest, there was no need for an election.

ECOM certified the uncontested elections last week.

Do you have information, evidence or other materials relevant to this story? Send news tips to news@tuftsdaily.com.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

Your name
Thu Apr 9 2009 21:35
"This was not the fault of ECOM or the candidates."

Going to have to disagree with you on that one. ECOM is responsible for filling the ballot with the correct names and the respective candidacy statements, and they didn't. That caused the confusion, which caused the attempted exploitation.

Your name
Thu Apr 9 2009 20:59
Let's make this quite clear. This was not the fault of ECOM or the candidates. It was just an error, that was going to be appealed no matter what. So chill. Like no one here actually even knows what happened? So stop pointing fingers, and naming names. I mean I know the guys on ECOM and they're really class acts. Three of them have been on ECOM for a long time, and they've presided over numerous elections and also let ECOM to be a respectable organization again, so chill. The candidates for the most part are really class acts too. Honestly, I find it funny that no one seems to care about senate or student govt. all year and now you care? Let's hope Tufts appreciates that it has not only dedicated student govt. officials, but people who want what's best for our second home.
Shawna Russo
Thu Apr 9 2009 16:54
Please, everyone take a moment and breathe. I personally know the Freshman senators from our time on Senate, and they are hard-working, good people. Their dedication to Tufts and improving campus life for all students is something that we should all aspire to. They do not deserve such demeaning and offensive comments. They were simply trying to make sure that every person who voted for them had their votes counted. Please vote again on Monday in the new elections and do not judge these candidates unfairly. They are only trying to improve our Tufts experience.
Shredmasta
Thu Apr 9 2009 15:44
As a concerned student....nope.
Your name
Thu Apr 9 2009 15:44
I'm in Elliott's group and he did send out a rebuttle saying that the votes would only count once. That wasn't published in the Daily...maybe it should have been.
Your name
Thu Apr 9 2009 14:00
img14.imageshack.us/img14/1197/picture3rxz.png

This screenshot is blatant. Elliott says in no unclear language that the votes count twice, and tells his supporters to vote for him again. I will give all the other senators the benefit of the doubt, but there is no excuse for what Elliott did. This is 100% voter fraud, and he should step down before he causes any further embarassment.

Bo Bappolo
Thu Apr 9 2009 13:23
I hear Rob Silverblatt was the one handing out the bribes.
JII
Thu Apr 9 2009 13:14
My understanding (in response to the "debatable" comment) is that Aaron thought the votes counted once but if you wanted to change something, you were free to do that...
09
Thu Apr 9 2009 12:17
This never happened when Nick H and Anjali N were on ecom.
Mary Langan
Thu Apr 9 2009 12:14
All of the candidates are hardworking ethical students who did their best to campaign with the desire to bring positive change to Tufts. Not one tried to unfairly exploit a computer glitch but instead any that did post comments were simply trying to make sure every voter had the chance to make sure his or her voice was heard. Alerting voters of the possibility their votes were not counted is sound practice and not something deserving of derision. On Monday, I hope all freshman take the opportunity to vote once again and retain their confidence in the election process.
Bo Bappolo
Thu Apr 9 2009 12:00
"img7.imageshack.us/img7/8329/picture1umcvwm.png
img16.imageshack.us/img16/8783/picture2coz.png
img14.imageshack.us/img14/1197/picture3rxz.png"

PWN'D!

Concerned
Thu Apr 9 2009 10:59
If the candidates sent corrections to their groups because they misunderstood but that isn't reported then someone should be sure that the whole story is told, not just parts. That includes all of the pictures that are in these comments.
Kaili
Thu Apr 9 2009 10:14
I voted for Pedro
Danielle Cotter
Thu Apr 9 2009 09:38
Hi everyone. As someone who has worked with and who personally knows the people involved, I just want to vouch for their character and assure all of you that what transpired was not a result of "corrupt" intentions. The way the story is framed is completely misleading. While sending a facebook message about this sort of thing may have been jumping the gun, people were simply nervous that their friends' votes would not count. We all love a juicy story, but this was simply a giant misunderstanding on everyone's part. While it is frustrating that we have to go through this stressful process once more, I do agree that a clean election is what our class deserves. I'd also encourage everyone who is interested to vote once more on Monday.
Your name
Thu Apr 9 2009 08:12
It sounds like Manuel just thought the votes might not have been counted and wanted to make sure they went through, Elliott on the other hand...
John
Thu Apr 9 2009 04:50
Did you read what aaron said below in the screenshot! He agrees that the ballots will be counted only once where is the unethical part? I don't get it!
Your name
Thu Apr 9 2009 04:47
debatable...he did say "you are FREE to vote a SECOND TIME" rather then "you have to vote for me again for it to count."
Johnny
Thu Apr 9 2009 04:45
To start off one candidate recused himself after sending that message! I happen to be in Elliott's group! Second Manuel is doing nothing wrong but insuring that people voted a second time because he was not sure if the ballot's would count! Aaron in the screenshot explains that the votes will not be counted twice and manuel agrees with that! He is not trying to be unethical about this just insuring the voter doesn't get fucked over by ECOM! But what can I say you seem to be convinced that they are evil people!! Maybe you should meet them instead of putting anonymous postings! accusing them of basically being corrupt! I though tufts had less dumb-fucks like you!
Your name
Thu Apr 9 2009 04:37
Manuel's message doesn't really hint at any impropriety. Elliot's though really seemed as if he thought the votes count doubly. He, if anyone, is at fault here.
Your name
Thu Apr 9 2009 04:26
To A more Concerned member of the community:

As these pictures show...
img7.imageshack.us/img7/8329/picture1umcvwm.png
img14.imageshack.us/img14/1197/picture3rxz.png

...they definitely didn't just want to make their supporters' votes count. they wanted to make them count a second time

You must be logged in to comment on an article. Not already a member? Register now

Log In