Draft a Mayor

There's been a lot of discussion in the Hamilton blogosphere about a new website called Draft a Mayor. Its goal is to encourage cross-country voter engagement for this year's municipal election. Interestingly enough, the site is being run by Fred Eisenberger's former chief of staff Ken Audziss.

Hamilton's Draft a Mayor race has been an interesting one. For the first few days of the poll, the leading candidate was former broadcaster Dan McLean, the Federal Liberal candidate for Ancaster-Flamborough-Dundas-Westdale. To my knowledge, McLean has no intention whatsoever of running for mayor (though judging from this poll, perhaps he should!)

Currently in the lead is Hamiltonian publisher Cal Di Falco. He has certainly emerged as a grassroots favourite amongst Hamilton's online community. Some commenters have also pointed out that unlike other candidates, Di Falco seems to be the benefactor of an active online campaign to boost his score.

Fred Eisenberger is lagging behind most candidates, including his council members Tom Jackson and Lloyd Ferguson. However, in an email this morning, the Draft-a-Mayor admins said they're not allowing votes from computers connected to the City of Hamilton network in an attempt to cut down on voter fraud. This may explain why many of  Eisenberger's supporters haven't been able to cast a vote.

In the last municipal election, Eisenberger used YouTube and other social media quite successfully. At the time, it was a pretty avant-garde way to attract voters with very little money. This time around, sites like Draft a Mayor, Facebook, and Twitter will undoubtedly play a bigger role in the race to the ballot box.

So, Hall Marks readers, what do you think about social media sites Draft-a-Mayor? Do they encourage civic participation? Can we trust them?

Comment disclaimer: Please keep in mind that this post is meant to encourage discussion about the validity of social media sites like Draft-a-Mayor. It's not meant to be a platform for any specific candidate.

UPDATE: Since this entry was posted, the admins at Draft a Mayor have revised their poll results. As the numbers have changed significantly, I’ve updated the image in this post. For a current tally, please visit the Draft a Mayor site.
 
Unfortunately, some posters have made personal comments targeted towards several people involved in the poll. That isn’t the sprit of this blog, nor was it the intention of this post. We also want to make it clear that the Spec and Hall Marks aren’t affiliated with Draft a Mayor or with any of the candidates.
 
Due to the personalized tone of this debate, this post will no longer be accepting comments.

Comments

[Dan Jelly]

"grass roots" support is one thing, but finding a couple of friends to stuff the virtual ballot box and flood social media with your name is something else entirely.

I'm all for change, fresh blood, etc, but so far I'm not impressed.

Social media will play a big role in all future elections, but it seems that some candidates really don't understand how it works, and how quickly it can backfire.

[Tom Robertson]

I this voting fraud why Mr. DiFalco's site The Hamiltonian is on hiatus and not being updated.

[Tom Robertson]

DiFalco had 100 fraudulent votes taken away from him. This could be what happens when you send a flock of believers out to campaign for you while you sit back quietly not stating your intentions

[Elizabeth V]

Fradulant Votes Tom I dont think so. The only fradulant thing is that draft a mayor is fixed. It is not putting up everyones votes.

Cal for Mayor all the way!

[Markalanwhittle]

Looks like the Draft-a-Mayor site has been hacked by someone, as yet unknown.

I'm sure Ken Audziss has an explaination as to how this came about and where these fradulent votes originated.

One thing for sure, I would be leery of letting the company affiliated with the site set up an election web site for me if I was a candidate, their programming might not be secure, as we have seen.

Despite all that, Cal's numbers are still increasing, unlike the others of which nobody has declared a campaign yet for Mayor.

Likely, none of them will, as almost half of council has already kicked off their campaigns and registered to run in their respective wards.

By the way Tom, I see from the official city of Hamilton web site Mayor Fred still hasn't bothered to oficially register for Mayor either, so no fundraising can commence. Don't you find that odd?

[Dan Jelly]

Well said Tom, but 'flock' is probably overstating it. I suspect much of the voting has been done by a few individuals with free throw-away email accounts.

What many people need to realise is that a lot of information can be recorded each time you visit a web site. I.P. address, the name of your service provider, even details such as your operating system and browser brand and version, the resolution of your monitor, the list goes on. (look up google analytics for an example)

If one or two people were to try to run up an individual's total on draftamayor.com over a short period of time it would become very obvious to the administrators.

Also, I don't doubt that the same thing is going on here and will continue to happen until the election. Multiple posts supporting a single candidate under different names might seem like a solid plan to overwhelm voters with your message, but it wouldn't be difficult to uncover the truth.

I smell a rat.

[Tom Robertson]

Dan that is why I don't take the comments of those who won't back up there opinion with there name seriously. Maybe Emma could enlighten us if IP numbers of posters are recorded here and if multiple posters have been detected.

Elizabeth it might not take your vote if you are trying to post a second or third vote under another name. It's funny when draft a mayor showed difalco with a false big lead the flock thought the site was the cat's ass.

[Markalanwhittle]

Dan, I found out how it was done through contacting the nice folks at Momentuum, the election company affiliated with the Draft-a-Mayor web site.

Here's the gist of their reply;

"DraftAMayor.com was not “hacked” there was an issue related to multiple votes from a single source through the manipulation of IP addresses."

Which begs the question, who did it and why?

[Hamiltonians sick and tired of games]

This post is to the person in charge of it. We the readers would like to know why our posts about Cal DiFalco are not being posted. I am appaled to think the Spec is in on this scam with draft a mayor. Let see if you have the guts to print this.

[Mike Russell]

The opinions expressed in social media are the opinions of the people who take the time to write them. They don't neccessarily reflect the opinions of the community or the majority.

Anyone who thinks that the views expressed on public forums are those of the majority is fooling themselves. Public forums are more often than not used by special interest groups to promote their points of view.

This comments section isn't too bad since we get a wide range of views that don't neccessarily reflect the opinions of special interests. This topic seems to be the exception to the rule. This newspapers sister paper the Toronto Star is a good example of how comment sections can be highjacked by special interests. It is widely known as a liberal paper and yet the bulk of comments are made by very organized conservative groups. It's not hard to tell when you get the same talking points comming up over and over by multple posters.

Social media can be a good outlet to blow off a little steam, but it does not reflect the opinions of the masses, but rather the opinions of the few that are inclined to share their opinions.