Executive Summary 

Following the close of voting in the LMSU Leaders Elections 2025, it was discovered that a data error had allowed recent graduates that were no longer eligible members to vote. A post-election investigation confirmed that although approximately 1,953 ineligible voters were present in the database, only 83 actually voted, and their participation did not affect the final outcome. Allegations that one campaign team had prior knowledge were also investigated and found to have no substantiating evidence in the voting patterns.

Ineligible votes have now been removed, the elections recounted, and results confirmed. All recommendations made by the Returning Officer have been accepted and immediately implemented by both the Students’ Union and the University. 

Full Statement from our Returning Officer, Peter Robertson

On Friday 4 April 2025 the results of the LMSU Leaders Elections were publicly announced following the close of voting at 12pm that day.  

Complaints were closed at 2pm and all outstanding complaints were investigated and resolved. 14 complaints and 3 appeals were received. Six complaints were upheld and 0 appeals. 

The following week on Wednesday 9 April it was brought to the attention of the Deputy Returning Officer by two separate individuals that recent graduates had been able vote in the Leaders Elections. It was also claimed that this information was known during the election by some candidates and not others, and that this was not disclosed to the SU staff team or the Returning Officer. 

The Deputy Returning Officer immediately conducted some initial enquiries into these claims and it was confirmed by the University that there was an oversight in the data transfer of student data from the University to the SU. This error had resulted in recent graduates - who should no longer have been included - remaining in the membership database. 

It was identified that this is an issue that has existed since the original data transfer set up in 2019, but has only been known to the University and SU staff since the 9 April 2025. 

The Deputy Returning Officer sought, and was granted, permission from the Returning Officer to open a post-elections investigation into the impact this error had on the outcome of the elections.  

Investigation 

The investigation sought to answer two questions: 

1. What is the size and impact of the issue on the 2025 election?  

1. Is there an indication that only one campaign team was aware of this information and used it to their unfair advantage?  

Findings 

What was the size and impact of the issue on our elections?  

1. The scale of the data issue was significant. Approximately 16% of our membership database was made up of non-members due to this data issue (1953 non-members). Each of these non-members would have had the ability to vote as they were marked as "current students" in the data files shared with the SU by the University. 

1. The potential impact was significant, as 16% of the electorate was ineligible. However, on investigation it was found that only 83 non-member individuals cast a vote in the LMSU Leaders Election 2025. This equated to about 3.81% of voters. 

1. All of the elections, bar two, were won by a significant margin of hundreds of votes, meaning that 83 non-member voters could not have made a difference to the outcome in most cases.  

For the Vice President Equity & Welfare position there was a 17 vote difference between the winner and runner up. The winner received 12 ineligible votes and the runner-up received 44.  

For the Women's Officer, there was a 32 vote difference. The winner received 16 ineligible votes and the runner up received 15.  

These numbers indicated that even for the two positions where the election was close, the data error has not made a difference to the outcome. To be certain of this, we removed all ineligible votes from the election and recounted it on 15 April 2025.  

This recount confirmed that this data issue had no impact on the outcome of the election.  

 

Is there an indication that one campaign team was aware of this information and used it to their unfair advantage? 

1. Both individuals who made the original claims stated that one campaign team had prior knowledge of this voter issue and had been using it to their advantage by explicitly campaigning for graduates to vote.  

1. There were two main campaign teams running multiple candidates in the election. We tested the hypothesis that a consistent voting pattern in the way ineligible votes were cast would emerge if one campaign team had prior knowledge of this issue and was using it to their unfair advantage. It would be expected that a significant proportion of these votes would be exclusively for one campaign team if these claims were accurate. 

1. We therefore analysed the votes that were cast by the ineligible voters. Focusing on individuals who voted in more than one election, we analysed how often they voted for one campaign team across all elections. 

1. There were 7 occurrences where a voter voted for all 4 main positions from the winning campaign team and 4 occurrences where a voter cast all 4 votes for the runners-up. This was out of 76 individuals voting in the Full-Time Officer elections (7 non-member voters only voted in the Part-Time or Student Council elections).  

1. The majority of non-member voters split their votes across a number of different candidates and teams.  

There is no indication that a significant proportion of ineligible voters were successfully canvassed to vote for one campaign team over others. 

Full analysis of the non-member votes can be seen here

Likely scenario 

1. The University has confirmed that the recent graduates included in our data maintain access to their University email accounts after graduation. They have confirmed that students graduating in November 2024 would still have access to these accounts. This means that these graduates would have still received all the SU emails regarding elections - including those during voting week - as these went to all students our database. It is not unlikely that a number of students have not disabled their University accounts from their phones/laptops yet. 

1. These non-members would have been members at the start of this academic year, and some chose to join various SU societies (as confirmed by sampling the engagement of some ineligible voters on our membership database). They also are likely to be friends with and remain on various formal and informal social media and communications groups with current students. It is not uncommon for non-members to remain in contact with current students.  

1. Therefore, if candidates were sending generic "vote for me" messages in what is a predominantly student group, it is possible for a non-member to have clicked the link and seen they could vote. Whilst this shouldn't have happened, it is not the non-members responsibility to ensure the elections have the correct data. Nor is it reasonable to expect a general student to know or understand our membership criteria. 

Returning Officer Recommendations 

1. That the recounted elections, which do not include any ineligible voters, are accepted as the final result. This will not change the outcome of any election. 

1. That a public statement from the Returning Officer outlining the issue and resolution is published. 

1. That the membership record is urgently corrected by the University to ensure accurate membership data is shared with the Students’ Union 

The Students’ Union and University have both accepted and acted upon these recommendations immediately. Updated and verified count sheets are now available publicly on the LMSU website and a correction to our data transfer is expected to be implemented by the University early next week.  

Final approved count sheets (conducted on 15 April 2025)

President

Vice President Education

Vice President Equity & Welfare

Vice President Activities & Opportunities

BAME Officer

Womens Officer 

Student Council