PSA disappointed about seat distribution after calculation error in the preliminary outcome

The final result of the elections is a letdown for newcomer Progressive Student Alliance (PSA). ‘I’m disappointed. How could the university make such a big mistake?’ asks lead candidate Panka Toma. The election board of Tilburg University explains that the error came from Inkesta, the company behind the voting application.

Panka Toma of PSA at the announcement of the preliminary election results. Image: Jack Tummers

During the announcement of the preliminary seat distribution, it appeared that PSA would enter the university council with two seats. Party Front, which secured five seats in the previous elections, was expected to lose one. But a few days later, the roles were reversed. Party Front retains its five seats, and PSA secures only one seat instead of two. For party SAM, nothing changes compared to the preliminary distribution.

Incorrect calculation

In the first count, the so-called ‘remainder seats’ were not allocated according to the rules laid out in article 7.11, section 3 of Tilburg University’s election regulations.

Remainder seats are those left over after the initial distribution and are awarded to parties with the highest average number of votes per (fictitious) additional seat. This average is calculated by dividing a party’s number of votes by the number of seats it has won plus one — and it was precisely this step that went wrong in the first count.

If you forget to include this fictitious extra seat in the calculation, the result often favors smaller parties, making it seem like they are more entitled to a remainder seat. That was the case with PSA.

At Inkesta, the executing party, there was a misinterpretation of the election regulations, leading them to calculate the result without the fictitious seat. Inkesta declined to comment on the error.

Party reactions

The final seat allocation hit PSA hard. ‘I was really in shock,’ Toma told Univers. On Instagram, PSA informed its followers that they were ‘deeply disappointed,’ both by the mistake itself and by the lack of explanation from the university. ‘It seems like they really made a huge mistake, so we want to know how that could happen.’

Together with the election board, the party reviewed the numbers. According to Toma, this did not bring the desired clarity. ‘I left with more questions than I came in with.’ The party is still in talks with the election board.

For the current Front board, the final seat distribution is a pleasant surprise. ‘We’re very happy for our candidates, they’ve worked incredibly hard,’ said Balousha Gho, General Board Member for Education at Front.

‘We saw that we had more than half of the votes. And fortunately, that has been rewarded with more than half of the seats,’ added faction leader Maarten Kas.

Preliminary results

The election board called the incident ‘very unfortunate.’ Chair Rens Verhoeven: ‘We always emphasize that the results are preliminary and still need to be verified. Now, during that verification, a mistake came to light that ultimately changed the election outcome.’ The election board is considering only presenting the final results in the future.

_Advertentie.