How would you vote on the boycott?

dajaffa

generalmiaow wrote:

But would it be advisable to create the precedent that any time the SU made a policy decision by a referendum that every cohort of students has to vote on it when the three/four years are up? I suppose it makes sense in a way, but it's a very expensive way of going about things, even if you combine votes as dajaffa suggested (which is a good idea if we do have to vote about the coke ban again this year).

We voted on a student centre last year that we would not see during our time in college, surely that would go against the spirit of such a precedent.

Well things like that stand until someone gets the 800 signatures together to run another reffurendum on the subject as per our constitution which could be 2 months later or 20 years later really, depending on when someone gets another ref going.

The only guideline really is that we (in theory) review the constitution every 5 years or so. There was a new constitution proposed last year but there was problems with the notice given and no vote was done.

Ppl tend to talk about this 5 year thing applying to our stance on certain subjects or someting, but there are no rules in this regard, it really depends on the student body of the time.

generalmiaow

generalmiaow wrote:

But would it be advisable to create the precedent that any time the SU made a policy decision by a referendum that every cohort of students has to vote on it when the three/four years are up?

It's actually a lot freer then that (to the best of my knowledge), there is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from proposing a referendum to stop the coke & nestlé ban, nor has there been since the last one. Remember, there was two referenda in one year on the subject of Coca-Cola.

So rather then waiting for 3 or 4 years, you can get one weeks/months after, with the necessary signatures of course. Oh, and you'd need a constitutional referendum for a policy put in place by a referendum to be put back to the students every few years!

My knowledge mightn't be up to speed, so I'm open to correction on the above.

The_Minister

You know, I think that I might turn theory into practice, (and no, I hadn't planned this when I started the thread). Does anyone have any info on how you get a referendum going? I assume that signatures expire over a time, so how do you plan the time for the vote.

generalmiaow

Myth wrote:

Oh, and you'd need a constitutional referendum for a policy put in place by a referendum to be put back to the students every few years!

I think you're right about that, though I wasn't suggesting that this actually be made a constitutional imperative, I'm curious about the precedent set by the argument that the amendments decided referenda of past student bodies don't represent the opinions of the current cohort, if any. I remember the second coke referendum and how the anti-ban people were criticised for having forced a second referendum so soon (albeit on a technical issue). I suppose if 800 people think it's important enough to vote about again then it is, and we should hold a referendum. I'll vote in it, but to be honest I'm more concerned with grinds and accommodation than colombian politics. I also think it'd be a lot harder for someone to push the line of "Let's bring back Nestle(tm) Products, it'll only cost the students 5,000 euro* to vote on it" to 800 people rather than banning it in the first place, but that's how it is.

Maybe they could hold one referendum every year with all the issues in it to save money. Actually, I think 04-05 had no referenda (correct me if I'm wrong)

*I heard this number in first year. It could be wrong.

Byrno

Personally I am completely behind these bans. For one the impact of all of UCDSU standing behind these campaigns is far greater than if all of us individually decided to boycott Néstle and Coca-Cola. Whilst I respect anyone's wish to buy what they like, in fact I have bought coke since when forced to due to it being the only drink available, I try to avoid it when possible.

Second of all I am one of those people who listened to both sides of the arguement back in the day and voted pro-ban and I can tell you that side was more convincing in my opinion. I'm not going to list off all the arguements at the minute as I wasn't a hack at the time so I don't have the literature! I would like to point out though that with Néstle it is more of a moral issue than a legal issue so there isn't any court evidence per se. And with Coca-Cola it is very hard to bring the issues to a court of law, especially woth Columbia the way it is. Even when the case was thrown out of the Courts in the US it was only on legal difficulties and on dismissing it the judge did say that the Coca-Cola Corporation did have questions to answer.

I wouldn't stand in the way of anyone who wanted to hold two referenda on this how ever first of all there are a substantial number of us that have voted on this already between final years, those doing 5/6 year courses, postgraduates and Pierce Farrells! I don't think we want another referendum on Coke. We've already had our say, twice. Also from the SU's point of view personally I don't want another year where people say that all the SU do is campaign on Coke. There's been sop much progress over the last couple of years and I'd be afraid that it would undo all the good work by giving an appearence that all the SU does is boycott things. However that is very much my own point of view.

PS Sorry if I rambled, I'm very tired at the minute!

Blush_01

humbert wrote:

people can make their choice when they go into the shop, it's not for the minority of opinionated muppets to choose for them:mad:

I agree with this. A boycott based on individual choice rather than lack thereof HAS to be stronger than the alternative, which we have at the moment. If everyone chooses to buy Pepsi etc. in favour of Coca Cola products - Coke, Fanta, Riverrock et al - the awareness that these people have of what they're doing is the achievement. People buying bottles of coke in 911 or Hilpers achieves nothing, except higher prices for students who don't get why there's a ban. Posters advising the offences caused by the companies and outlining the products of same would be just as effective. People who want x will buy x regardless in some cases. Awareness, or boycott by choice beats boycott by ignorance any day in my estimation.

If you know why the boycotts exist and don't agree, you should have access to the products, in the same way that you can choose not to buy if you agree.

panda100

singingstranger wrote:

For the benefit of those unclear on the *alleged* (because it's gotta be done) of Coca-Cola or Nestle in the cases in question:...


url]www.killercoke.org[/url]

.

Please dont make your mind up from this website. It is biased and doesnt tell the whole story .
This may help paint a more unbiased picture
http://citizenship.coca-cola.co.uk/latest/index.asp
http://citizenship.coca-cola.co.uk/workplace/labour.asp
http://www.cokefacts.org/

What must be remebered with the nestle ban is we are punishing just one company who abuse people of the third world. Its not just isolated to nestle.It is more then likely every multinational cpompany who abuse citizens of the third world as our prototype. Nestle really are one of many with the main offenders really being the pharmecutical companies.


What really is wrong here is not the ban itself but the referendum process. The fact is only 2,500 voted for the coke ban. That is a measly 12.5% of the student body.That is undemocratic and wholly unrepresantative of us students.

Young Siward

panda100 wrote:

Please dont make your mind up from this website. It is biased and doesnt tell the whole story .
This may help paint a more unbiased picture
http://citizenship.coca-cola.co.uk/latest/index.asp
http://citizenship.coca-cola.co.uk/workplace/labour.asp
http://www.cokefacts.org/

Whereas links direct from Cokes' website do......?

panda100

Young Siward wrote:

Whereas links direct from Cokes' website do......?

Yeah alright there probably about as biased as killercoke.org but at least you get to hear the two sides of the story.

Stabshauptmann

humbert wrote:

people can make their choice when they go into the shop, it's not for the minority of opinionated muppets to choose for them:mad:

Listen its really quite simple. Should people be allowed to choose what to buy? Obviously you think yes.

Well as the owner of a shop I choose not to buy product 'X'. It was my choice and I think Im entitled to make it.

Make whatever arguements you like, but saying you should be allowed choice is BS hypocracy because you're ignoring my right as a shop owner to choose not to buy a product I dont want to.

Ps, and that would be the opinionated majority - in two referendum, btw

Royale with Cheese

dajaffa wrote:

It was banned due to the lack of action taken by the Coca Cola Corporation after (the alleged) murders of some workers in Columbia due to their membership of a trade union. And nobody has the right to make up other people's minds for them, that's why we held reffurendums. The coke one was held twice with the ban supported both times.

Why is a democratic process needed here? You can only have one government hence people have to have an election and vote. Why you need to vote to boycott coke is beyond me. Boycott it if you want to, buy it if you want to. Having a referendum and banning the product is making up people's minds for them. Democracy is a far from flawless system and is not needed in this case. Those in support of the ban could still choose to boycott it if the ban was removed, however those not in favour of the ban don't have a choice. If you want to boycott the product, spread awareness, get a petition of all the people in UCD who don't want to buy the product for reasons given and then send that to coke. It'll have the same affect (nothing).

The process if flawed, the low turnout indicates the vast majority of the student body couldn't care less (i.e. would not support the ban but don't feel strongly enough about it to go out and vote). The only people who would be bothered enough to vote are the ones who feel strongly in favour on banning it, not too many feel that strongly against the ban. This referendum was a joke. Anyone who thinks it's anything other than a bunch of people trying to make themselves feel important are deluding themselves. Why does there need to be a big referendum on a issue which bears no relevance to the student body? It was just held for the sake of having a referendum.

P.S I don't even buy and Coke or Nestle products. I'm one of the select few who considers Pepsi to be the superior brand. I couldn't care less about the availabilty of these products in the SU shops, just about some opinionated activists making peoples decisions for them.

humbert

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Listen its really quite simple. Should people be allowed to choose what to buy? Obviously you think yes.

Well as the owner of a shop I choose not to buy product 'X'. It was my choice and I think Im entitled to make it.

Make whatever arguements you like, but saying you should be allowed choice is BS hypocracy because you're ignoring my right as a shop owner to choose not to buy a product I dont want to.

Ps, and that would be the opinionated majority - in two referendum, btw

well you say shop owner, by that you mean SU, buy that you mean the students. this means that the shop should buy what the students want, getting a small majority in a referendum where they struggled to get 30% to turnout can hardly be said to be representative of the students. I've said it before, if the majority of the students don't care then nothing should change, that imo is democracy

EDIT: except in cases where a decision has to be made, of course.

Stabshauptmann

Blush_01 wrote:

If you know why the boycotts exist and don't agree, you should have access to the products.

You DO have access. There is no blanket ban on campus. FFS the SU hasnt even tried to ban coke in the forum bar though they're on the committee there. All there is is that the shop (a legal entity) made a decision not to buy coke anymore. Not to stop it being sold to students but because the shop's owners didnt want to buy the product.

The SU shops dont sell pornos. I want pornos and I dont see why the opinionated minority should stop impede my porno habbit

I dont care if you choose to buy these products. Do. There are plenty of places on campus to do so. But respect my choice not to buy it (for use in my shops).

Stabshauptmann

humbert wrote:

well you say shop owner, by that you mean SU, buy that you mean the students. this means that the shop should buy what the students want, getting a small majority in a referendum where they struggled to get 30% to turnout can hardly be said to be representative of the students. I've said it before, if the majority of the students don't care then nothing should change, that imo is democracy

EDIT: except in cases where a decision has to be made, of course.

You talk about choice but dont respect my choice of words

I said shop, I mean shop. I dont mean USI or the irish congress of trade unions. I mean a commercial decision, taken my management of a business entity.

And its great that you have your little theories on how democracy should run, but unless you've got a secret army and the revolution is sooner that I think, Im gonna stick with the current system.

I person = I vote. If a quorum is reached the vote is valid.

humbert

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Well as the owner of a shop

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

You talk about choice but dont respect my choice of words

I said shop, I mean shop. I dont mean USI or the irish congress of trade unions. I mean a commercial decision, taken my management of a business entity.

And its great that you have your little theories on how democracy should run, but unless you've got a secret army and the revolution is sooner that I think, Im gonna stick with the current system.

I person = I vote. If a quorum is reached the vote is valid.

weak argument and wildly off topic, we're discussing the SU banning of coke and nestle, it wasn't a commercial decision.

Stabshauptmann

humbert wrote:

weak argument and wildly off topic, we're discussing the SU banning of coke and nestle, it wasn't a commercial decision.

Why wasnt it?

Riverisland choose to pay their workers in africa high wages.
Businesses make ethical decisions all the time. I would love for anyone to explain to me how a shop making a stocking decsion cant be considered a commercial decision.

And as for weak arguements:
"getting a small majority in a referendum where they struggled to get 30% to turnout "

Struggled to get 30%?!

SU Constitution wrote:

Any Referendum under this Section shall be deemed to have been passed if the majority of the votes cast at such referendum shall have been cast in favour of the proposal and not less than 10% of the members of the Union shall have voted at such referendum

Now you have idealistic notions that at least 51% of the entire student body should be in favour. Thats rediculous because you couldnt even expect 50% to show up for voting.

A poignent example, Bill clinton was elected in 1996 as president of the most powerful nation in the world, with only 48% of those of voting age actually voting. Of which Clinton only got 49%. Do the math. Less than half of those eligable to vote voted, less than half of those voted for Clinton in 1996.

And you want 51% of all those eligable to vote to vote in favour of the motion. Dream on!

Vainglory

panda100 wrote:

Im undecided really but I do think ultimatly at the end of the day students should have the choice to buy whatever they want in the su shops.

Should shops not have the right to sell whatever products they want and don't want?

Edit - Ah, just read through the rest of the thread. Seems my comments are being echoed.

rainbow kirby wrote:

Allow both. They made an arse of the referendum for the Coke ban both times when they ran it, and reversed the wording the second time which confused quite a few people... it should never have been brought in in the first place.

The only people who re-ran the referendum and changed the wording were the anti-coke side.

You have the right as a member of your Students' Union to vote in the elections and in the referenda. If you wish to give out about how things aren't fair given that 12.5% voted, then I suggest you rally people to vote. If you wish to change the rules of the 10% quorum, then you should get collecting signatures, but remember that the rules that are currently in place in your constitution were voted upon and agreed by members of UCDSU!

Apologies for my repeated intrusion on this topic, but I've always found the debate on the Coke issue quite fascinating.

panda100

Vainglory wrote:

Should shops not have the right to sell whatever products they want and don't want?

.

Yes Definaltly, I 110% agree with you. Students have an absolute right to say what can or cannot be sold in the union shops. But 2,500 (12.5%) is not representative of the student body. As I said before,I agree with the coke boycott I just dont agree with the way the su handle referendums.

humbert

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Why wasnt it?

Riverisland choose to pay their workers in africa high wages.
Businesses make ethical decisions all the time. I would love for anyone to explain to me how a shop making a stocking decsion cant be considered a commercial decision.

And as for weak arguements:
"getting a small majority in a referendum where they struggled to get 30% to turnout "

Struggled to get 30%?!


Now you have idealistic notions that at least 51% of the entire student body should be in favour. Thats rediculous because you couldnt even expect 50% to show up for voting.

A poignent example, Bill clinton was elected in 1996 as president of the most powerful nation in the world, with only 48% of those of voting age actually voting. Of which Clinton only got 49%. Do the math. Less than half of those eligable to vote voted, less than half of those voted for Clinton in 1996.

And you want 51% of all those eligable to vote to vote in favour of the motion. Dream on!

Read what I said, I said that I think half the students should care enough to vote, not half the students should vote in favour. yes lets look to the american elections for a good example of democracy working!

The riverisland thing was I'm sure good publicity in the hope of boosting sales, nothing like the decision made here.

10%, what a joke.

Oh and I love the way the student union(who run the SU shops) say on one hand that the students are the union then on the other hand say the shops should be allowed to sell what ever they like.

Jonny Arson

Errrghh not Coca-Cola again

Ideally everybody could buy what they like, I would like to see freedom of choice for students but lets be realistic, UCDSU can sell whatever they like or whatever they don't like, that's just a fact of life. No point in starting a petition to lift the ban because UCDSU still wont be obliged to sell these products, a referendum for the UCDSU to specifically sell Coca-Cola and Nestle products would be the only one to hold up. I'm interested to see what comes of the UCDSU Finance officers position with regards to him signing up Coca-Cola as B+L sponsors. Undoubtedly this is a major conflict of interest and this lead to interesting consequences for the legitimacy of the UCDSU Coca-Cola ban

IMO the notion of another referendum over Coca-Cola is pointless. People should be spending their time doing something more useful and productive like campaigning for a healthier selection of juice drinks and for more availablity of Fair Trade products instead of going all out to to help Coca-Cola's crusade in boosting their monsterous profits at the expense of workers rights.


Anyway, remember Coke is bad for your teeth!

Blush_01

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

There is no blanket ban on campus. FFS the SU hasnt even tried to ban coke in the forum bar though they're on the committee there.

Do you drink in the pubs on campus? Do you not remember, back in the reign of Jim, that they DID remove Coke products from the Student and Forum bars? But they brought them back - I would assume due to demand. (IMHO, Pepsi and whiskey is rank, by the way. Pepsi Twist less so, but still ick.)

Kap, they're not *your* shops. They're *our* shops. The ownership changes on an annual basis - surely each new set of owners should have the right to choose their stock? I think that's the point here. And if the boycott is so weak that it has to be enforced rather than be an educated choice, you really have to question the boycott's relevance and validity.

Stabshauptmann

humbert wrote:

Read what I said, I said that I think half the students should care enough to vote, not half the students should vote in favour.

48% of those of voting age came out to the polls for the 1996 american presidential elections. What you deem to be a reasonable turnout is impractical and unrealistic.

yes lets look to the american elections for a good example of democracy working!

Theres not a single system in the world, past, presnt or proposed that I cant see fault in. The point is mute.

The riverisland thing was I'm sure good publicity in the hope of boosting sales

Thats just down right cynical. And I honestly disagree with you. Obviously the majority of students disagree with you too when it comes to the importance of ethics in business.

10%, what a joke.

Why? Seriously, you suggest 50% - that has been proven to be unrealistically high. Now if you were to propose a totally new system, where by of the how many percent that vote there must be a clear majority with that of 60-40. That would be a progressive arguement. But going round in circles John, you can do better.

Lovin it though.

John: A minority forced it upon us
Informed poster: Well actually there were 2 referenda both with a majority in favour of the ban
John: A mere 30% turnout isnt valid
Informed poster: Well actually 10% makes it valid
John: It should be at least 50%
Informed Poster: Well, arguably the most important elections in the world - that for US president have been known to be less than 50%
John:It should be at least 50!!

Come up with a new point.

Oh and I love the way the student union(who run the SU shops) say on one hand that the students are the union then on the other hand say the shops should be allowed to sell what ever they like.

John I think you are deluding yourself. Who are the they? The they you speak of are the majority of students.
You say that "the shop should [stock] what [some] students want".

It is not a practical policy to stock every concievable item that any student might possibly want. We're surly agreed on that?
The shop is not obliged to stock any one particular product.

Now yes there clearly would be a market for coke and nestle. theres also a market for alcohol, porn, DVDs, Pizza and a lot of other things.
Management made the decision however not to persue certain lines of business (of course taking into account external factors when doing so, particularly in the case of alcohol) despite demand. It was their right.

Management, in the most democratic way possible decided to discontinue two product ranges. They were entitled to do so. And you are entitled to try have it overturned.

The decision was made legitimitly by those who had a right to do so. You still have the ability to buy these items but some of us are exercising our right not to buy them or buy them for our shop.

Stabshauptmann

Blush_01 wrote:

Kap, they're not *your* shops. They're *our* shops.

The concept of majority will and collective responsibility, was clearly too much for many people to grasp; so I simplified it down to one owner and gave him a face. Hopefully the dim could then understand that the shop owner, as a single legal entity, made a choice that he had just as much right to make and which holds just as much validity as their individual choices. The choice of what to buy.


The main thing Ive learned from 2 years of economics. People are stupid, they dont grasp complicated things. Identify the main principals and simplify it. Even then it can be pretty hit or miss.

Techically there is only one shop owner. The student union is a single legal entity. It is not 20,000 smaller legal entities acting together coincidently enough. It is one entity whos decisions are taken (in theory) by its 20,000 members my democratic majority voting. This is then the decision of a single legal entity. Even if I voted against or abstained from the decision made I am bound by it . I cannot opt out because it was the "wrong" decision.

Stabshauptmann

Blush_01 wrote:

Do you drink in the pubs on campus? Do you not remember, back in the reign of Jim, that they DID remove Coke products from the Student and Forum bars? But they brought them back - I would assume due to demand. (IMHO, Pepsi and whiskey is rank, by the way. Pepsi Twist less so, but still ick.)

No I hadnt noticed.
Probably cos I drink Jameson and red. I drink it straight if the bar has the nerve to charge me for my dash. Redz once charged me €2 the little ****ers. When I was in first year there was a sign saying something like "Whiskey and coke - only €4".
I remeber thnking jameson costs me at the time 3.60 (3.80 now) in my local so that wasnt much of a deal.
Last year I distincly remember buying a double vodka and coke in the forum. The coke came in a litle glass coke bottle:). I didnt think they'd sell me the coke and then someone explained to me the SU doesnt own the forum, it simply has one of the seats on the committee.

humbert

the quote wars, get them off me, get them off:eek: and don't be destroying my flawless secret identity padraig *cough*from the barbeque*cough*.

you're makign up points and parallels that are inaccurate or irrelevant, a ucd referendum on banning coke and a national election are not very similar.
"Obviously the majority of students disagree with you too when it comes to the importance of ethics in business." could you explain the connection between this and what i said?

do you believe a 10% turnout is adequate to give a fair representation of what the students want?

to be honest I don't have the interest or energy to respond to every single absurd point made there.

Byrno

panda100 wrote:

Yes Definaltly, I 110% agree with you. Students have an absolute right to say what can or cannot be sold in the union shops. But 2,500 (12.5%) is not representative of the student body. As I said before,I agree with the coke boycott I just dont agree with the way the su handle referendums.

What do you not agree with about the way the SU handle referenda? I agree that it is unfortunate that 80-odd% of the student population chose not to use their sufferage rights and there is a lot that the SU can do. But everyone in college knew about the referendum at the time and there comes a stage where students have to take reponsibility for not voting. It is my opinion that if you have the opportunity to vote and you don't avail of that opportunity then you have no right to turn around and complain about the decision that the students who bothered to vote came to. At some stage you have to take reponsibility for your own laziness.

In regards to this we came to decision 3 years ago on the coke issue, twice. Both times it was quorate and both times the majority voted for the boycott. If you weren't around at the time, sorry, and there could well be a case for another referendum on this in a couple of years when nearly all off us that were around are gone. Similarly there is a case for re-running the Néstle referendum. However if you do not use your right to vote, I'm sorry but you have no right to complain about the outcome.

Blush_01

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Techically there is only one shop owner. The student union is a single legal entity. It is not 20,000 smaller legal entities acting together coincidently enough. It is one entity whos decisions are taken (in theory) by its 20,000 members my democratic majority voting. This is then the decision of a single legal entity. Even if I voted against or abstained from the decision made I am bound by it . I cannot opt out because it was the "wrong" decision.

These members change annually. Actually, more frequently than annually, but an annual review is probably the sanest thing. Well done on sidestepping the issue that the ban we did or didn't vote on three odd years ago is being forced onto people who came to the college after that date.

That's a democracy, is it? Well shucks.

Then again, that's just my opinion.

Vainglory

Blush_01 wrote:

These members change annually. Actually, more frequently than annually, but an annual review is probably the sanest thing. Well done on sidestepping the issue that the ban we did or didn't vote on three odd years ago is being forced onto people who came to the college after that date.

That's a democracy, is it? Well shucks.

Then again, that's just my opinion.

You call it a ban, I call it a decision not to stock something. Coke is not "banned" in the SU shops. You can walk into the SU shop drinking a can of Coke if you so wish. It is simply not stocked there. The word "ban", as far as I'm aware, was never used by the anti-Coke side in the referenda.

In fairness, I agree with the SU shops not stocking Coke. So I'm hardly going to put my time into running a referendum that might possibly overturn it. That responsibility really does lie with people, such as yourself, who don't agree with it. If you don't have time, that's fine, but it seems a bit redundant giving out to people who don't want the situation changed for not trying to change the situation.

Anyway, I think we all need to step back here and think seriously what we're asking.

If there was another referendum on Coke, it could potentially cost a good bit of money. Three referenda on the same topic in three years? Reminds me of Nice, only worse..

Would it actually change the situation much, anyway? Sure, you can't get it in the SU shops. But by everyone's admission, you can get it pretty easily on campus if you actually do want it. So it's not as if we're dealing with Coke junkies (pardon the pun) who desparately need their daily fix (ditto). They still have the choice of buying Coke, they just have to go to specific places to get it. Crisis? Disaster? I think not.

Thirdly, I've had more arguments than I've had hot dinners with people on these message boards about how the Union shouldn't be wasting their time on issues not directly affecting students. Many of them are now arguing that the policy on Coke should be reversed, involving a referendum. Surely, if it won't really make a material difference to your ability to buy Coke if you really really want it, then we should just let sleeping dogs lie? Not waste any more money on these "non-student issues when it won't really make a difference anyway?

The members do change anually, yes. Should we then have a vote annually, on the issue of Coke? Nobody is clamouring for a vote on the UCDSU constitution annually, because each year the members are different and might want a different kind of organisation. Why is this case so much more emotive, and why does it evoke the righteous claims that things are being "forced" on people? What does that even mean? I'm "forced" not to buy Coke in the SU shop? Forcing is generally associated with being forced to DO things, not forced NOT to do things.

Eh, I don't understand why people get so het-up debating this from behind a keyboard. If you feel really, really strongly about it, then run the campaign, or run the campaign to change the constitution so mandates lapse after a certain amount of years. There's a constitutional referendum coming up so you could contact the Union and lobby for that to be put in. Do SOMETHING.

But please, don't give out to me for not doing it.

mloc

the problem with the bans is it's primarily the lefty activist muppets who vote as they seem to have nothing better to do... lest we forget some of us actually study in college and don't have an awful lot of time for childish protesting about almost completely irrelevant topics.

Internet voting through the ucd connect system would make a lot more sense. It already is used for doing surveys with regards fees, so voting for elections isn't that much more difficult to orchestrate. Trust me, if the students in Quinn could vote using blackboard, the pathetically hippy attitudes of the SU would be buried overnight. And we might be able to get around to some issues more pressing to students lives, such as sorting out the parking nightmare, providing more facilities for students who bring in thier own food (microwaves, etc), more easily accessed career advice etc. While the average student might not like the situation regarding human rights and Coke/Nestle, they would like a can of coke in thier shops.