APPEAL SUMMARy
MY EXPERIENCE OF THE 2018 GRADUATE UNION PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, MY DISQUALIFICATION AND APPEAL
-Joe Cotton
for the record
1. I accept the result of the appeal, and its effect on the election
2. I wish the new president, Sofia Ropek-Hewson, all the best!
3. I've made this site so you can hear my side of the story if you're interested, because I believe it's in the public interest, and because I want to own up to my mistakes so they can be learned from in future!
AN HONEST MISTAKE
My campaign used iPads and laptops to facilitate mobile voting and enable a larger turnout (last year a mere 6% of grads voted).
This strategy was based on the experience of a member of my campaign team at their former University where it was well within the rules. It was also recommended to me by a former Vice President of the Graduate Union who used their smartphone to allow people to vote in their own election.
More details on the rationale for the iPad strategy
However, the Elections Committee were informed that my iPad strategy was in breach of the Cambridge University Student Union (CUSU) Standing Orders that govern the electoral process, specifically Article G.10.viii which states:
​
“No candidate or member of their campaign team, or any other person attempting to influence a voter may approach within three metres of the polling station except when they themselves are voting”.
Let's call it the "three-metre rule"
Two-and-a-half hours before voting closed, the Elections Committee called me in to discuss the use of iPads in my campaign, and they informed me of their interpretation of iPads themselves as mobile "polling stations", which meant that my campaign was in breach of Article G.10.viii: the "three-metre rule".
Before this point, I did not think I was in breach of the rules, and in fact had only been praised on the strategy, which according to one MCR president: "represented a proactivity in making the GU election procedure more accessible to students, an effort which should be applauded given the strikingly low numbers of graduate students who actually turn up to vote."
WHERE I MESSed UP
discussion of
iPad strategy
When we were discussing the use of iPads, I told a member of my campaign team that I would have to ask for permission first (this is our conversation here on the left - I'm in blue); but the person I asked was not a current member of the EC. (They were a former member of the EC though - and they had previously used a similar strategy with smartphones in their own GU election campaign)
In the "candidates pack", the Elections Committee (EC) put forward three principles that all the candidates had to follow:
-
Do only what other candidates have an equal opportunity to do,
-
Treat all students, candidates, and staff members with respect,
-
If in doubt, ask the Elections Committee first.
So I didn't do this for my iPad strategy, and that was my responsibility ...
so WHAT HAPPENED?
The publication of the results of the election were delayed, to give the Elections Committee (EC) time to investigate my campaign's breach of the "three-metre rule".
​
To assist in this investigation, I provided the EC with an estimate of the extent of voting that occurred on the iPad when I was within three metres of the voter. I provided this estimate without being asked to do so, and in advance of the results of the election being made public.
​
Once the results came out, it was revealed that I had won the election with a majority of 144 votes. I was also disqualified for breaking the "three-metre rule".
*The estimates were generated in a multi stage process, in which I first wrote down how many people chose to use the iPad to vote at a certain time and location, and then contacted members of my campaign team and other bystanders who were around at that time and location. I asked them how many people they saw with the iPad, without telling them my estimate, and then came up with a best estimate between these accounts, which totals 88 votes. Of course, I do not know how many of these 88 votes were cast for me, and in fact some voters actively chose to inform me and my campaigners that they had voted for other
candidates (which was fine
by us, we were just pleased
to improve the turnout
and the mandate!)
RULING and appeal
Following their investigation, the Elections Committee opted for disqualification:
​The Elections Committee has chosen to disqualify Joe Cotton from the GU Presidential Election. This is due to a breach of the CUSU Standing Orders, Article G.10.viii, which reads “no candidate or member of their campaign team, or any other person attempting to influence a voter may approach within three metre of the polling station except when they themselves are voting”. In this instance, the breach relates to Joe’s use of an iPad when encouraging voters to vote in the GU elections. According to the evidence available to the EC, insufficient steps were taken by Joe to provide space to those casting ballots on the iPad he had provided (12/03/2018).
​​The EC also noted that:
-
The three-metre rule "may not have been sufficiently communicated to candidates"
-
That "it does not believe Joe intentionally attempted to coerce or intimidate voters"
-
That it "recognise[s] efforts by Joe to make voters aware of other candidates in the election"
-
That the ruling is "based on the potential of this practice to influence voters"
-
And that "Joe’s use of this method of campaigning throughout the election required that he be disqualified from the election"
(emphasis added: view full ruling here).
I appealed the EC's ruling because I felt it was disproportionate given the mitigating factors:
That there was insufficient communication of the rule in question, that I had no intention to unduly influence voters, and that the ruling was only based on the potential to influence as in fact were no actual allegations of undue influence from voters.
Click here to read the full appeal (15pp)
responses
​In their response to my appeal (16/03/18), the EC stated that:
In the opinion of the EC, this appeal has failed to address the key principle underlying the EC decision, that voters must feel free to cast their ballots free from influence.
The fact that Joe estimates that only 88 votes were cast on iPad is irrelevant, the decision was made without reference to votes but on the basis of the principle breached by Joe.
(view full ruling here)
​In response to the EC, I argued that:
I wish to clearly state that democratic principles of fair and free elections are central to my whole involvement in running for President. At no point in the campaign did I do anything that I felt was in breach of any democratic principles, and as soon as I was made aware that there was a possibility that my actions were problematic, I immediately complied. In hindsight, I understand how the three-metre provision in Article G.10.viii is a guarantee that neither the secrecy of the ballot will be broken, nor undue influence will be exerted on voters, however I argue that even without this ‘three-metre guarantee’, democratic principles were at all times upheld by my campaign.
Click here to read my response letter in full (2 pages)
The EC upheld their original ruling following my appeal, and since we remained in disagreement, I appealed to the University directly, however it was decided to uphold the EC's decision.