A service set up to facilitate the purchase of votes for the Undergraduate Council (UC) elections shut down early yesterday morning after no buyers entered the market.

In total, 34 votes for UC were offered at prices ranging from $1 to $50, but none were sold, according to Aleksei Boiko ’06, who created the service.

But concern about the prospect of trading votes for money led the Election Commission (EC) to meet with the three UC presidential candidates late Tuesday night.

“No vote selling has occurred as far as the Election Commission can confirm,” said EC chair Michael B. Love ’08. “But then again, we’re getting our information from the student who set up the vote market.”

Love added that Boiko’s assurance that no votes had been bought gave him confidence in the integrity of the election.

“Because no transactions took place, the results can be completely certified,” Love said. “If the vote transaction did take place, it would cast doubt on the winner, but now because that’s not taking place, we can confirm the winner without the shadow of doubt.”

Prior to the EC meeting last night, the commission consulted with Dean of the College Benedict H. Gross ’71 and members of the administrative board about the legitimacy of buying and selling votes.

“The administration thought this was bad and distasteful but they didn’t feel that is was within their bounds functioning under Harvard College rules to stop the program,” said Love. “Dean Gross was helpful in that he said that he didn’t want vote selling to occur and would try to stop it.”

Though he originally hoped to earn money using the market, Boiko made the service non-profit after learning that he could face repercussions.

“It originally started out as a viable idea to make a profit. I later found out that I could potentially be subject to disciplinary action, so I made the service non-profit with the idea to give the money to the UC or another charitable organization,” Boiko said.

The EC also said Monday that any campaign found to be buying votes would “almost certainly” be disqualified.

Boiko advanced several theories to explain the lack of demand for UC votes, in addition to the EC’s threat.

“Either the entire student body was opposed to buying votes, or no student cared enough to pay for a second UC election vote,” Boiko said.

Though few ultimately showed interest in the UC vote market, Boiko said he would consider a similar service for other elections.

“This is definitely not a joke on my part,” Boiko said. “If there is another election that I think is big enough, I would try it again as long as it wasn’t illegal or breaking any rules. But, I wouldn’t try it at Harvard again because making a profit wouldn’t be possible.”

All three of the candidates condemned the Boiko’s service, and said they were relieved that no students had actually purchased votes.

“I think personally that selling votes is compromising the whole election. It is a compromization of democracy,” said presidential candidate Magnus Grimeland ’07.

Competing presidential candidate John S. Haddock ’07 agreed that the exchange of vote in the market could have jeopardized people’s faith in the outcome of the election.

“The vote buying scheme was really disturbing and threw all of our trust in the election into question,” Haddock said. “I think that we have to be very much reassured that no individual would stoop so low as to buy votes in this campaign—that is so important for the legitimacy of this election and of the president.”

John F. Voith ’07, the third candidate for UC president, added that the vote market may have reflected the tone of some elements of the campaign.

“I think it might just be a response to some of the negativity that has surrounded this election,” Voith said. “Even with this vote market idea, I hope that all the Harvard students can just focus on the issues at hand—working out what each candidate stands for and what not.”