Again, (again, again) it begins... (SU Elections)

xebec

Memories of last year, the fun debating stuff surrounding the elections has finally started, I'm just happy I'm not on the EC this year!

foxybrowne is right that the EC are the ones to interpret the constitution, but in this case I feel they would be wrong to try to interpret it in any way other than the way it was meant (I don't have that Schedule in front of me, hence the vagueness of my language, sorry).

I'm on xeduCat's side on this one, really don't think rules should be bent/broken in favour of any candidate. Hope the EC realise the position they'll be putting themselves in if they do allow the candidate back on the ballot, personally I'll be enjoying the fireworks (maybe even lighting one or two)!

wowy

shay_562 wrote:

Yeah, but in this case surely an exception should/could be made? I'm not saying Sean is blameless (certainly, he should have informed himself better of the rules), but it's not as if he breached a major rule that could in any way give him an advantage. Where's the harm (beyond a simple "rules are rules") in letting him compete?

I'm not saying that it's an advantage, but surely even the fact that this issue is giving him much more exposure than the rest of the candidates could perhaps be considered unfair to the rest of them?

I do feel sorry for him given that it was such a non-issue of an oversight, but in this situation, I don't think that he'll be allowed back in, just cos of the stink the rest of the candidates will more than likely kick up. There's always next year for him anyway..........

patzer117

why would the other candidates kick up stink? and surely that could be construed as negative campaigning if they did? it'd be extremely bad form if they did anyway - they should win on their merits not on the fact that someone wasn't allowed to run right? winning that way is always more fun anyway

but seriously, apart from the rules, surely it's in the interest of democracy, and in having the elections viewed fairly by the general student population, that the exception is made

Its such a small issue (not having a deposit in on time) that I'd be horrified if the EC didn't let him run

Time Magazine

Would any of the other candidates like to publically come out and oppose his inclusion on the ballot?

Moreover, would any other candidate have the courage to call for his inclusion on the ballot?

xeduCat

Surely you're not suggesting that the Electoral Commission should be influenced by lobbying, Ibid?

Nietzschean

patzer117 wrote:

but seriously, apart from the rules, surely it's in the interest of democracy, and in having the elections viewed fairly by the general student population, that the exception is made

Huh, its in the interest of democracy that we toss out the rules and start making exceptions? that road leads to one of those places that isn't democracy....

Its such a small issue (not having a deposit in on time) that I'd be horrified if the EC didn't let him run

I'd be horrified if they did, a rule is a rule. Sucks for him but can't start changing em to suit the candidates or bending em...

shay_562

wowy wrote:

I'm not saying that it's an advantage, but surely even the fact that this issue is giving him much more exposure than the rest of the candidates could perhaps be considered unfair to the rest of them?...I don't think that he'll be allowed back in, just cos of the stink the rest of the candidates will more than likely kick up.

First off, so far as I can see any exposure is negative, and minimal (is this widely known yet outside of boards/people who know Sean personally?). Also, I'd wager one of the other candidates could get just as much exposure out of it simply by publicly calling for him to be allowed back in. Certainly, I'd be shocked if either of them were stupid enough to personally kick up a stink about it - you'd assume people aiming to run a newspaper would be savvy enough about mass perception to realise how badly that could be spun (as patzer said, it's incredibly easy to spin it as "X candidate so terrified of competition they threw a hissy fit to have Y excluded"; not saying that I believe that viewpoint, simply that it's an easy one to propagate).

Nietzschean wrote:

Huh, its in the interest of democracy that we toss out the rules and start making exceptions? that road leads to one of those places that isn't democracy...a rule is a rule. Sucks for him but can't start changing em to suit the candidates or bending em...

So letting Sean run would set us on the road to a totalitarian dictatorship then? Seriously, I don't know where else you're going with the "that leads us to one of those places that isn't a democracy" comment - how is loosening the rules in order for the electorate to get a wider choice in any way counterproductive to the primary aims of democracy? And as for "a rule is a rule", literally just last week there was confusion over the time nominations closed due to a minor oversight from El Presidente and so it was decided to be more lenient with the times. Rules are so that there isn't general anarchy; there's nothing wrong with breaching them on a case-by-case basis when the individual circumstances warrant it, and I firmly believe this case falls within those grounds.

As I said above, I'm not suggesting a situation whereby a candidate is allowed to breach or even bend serious rules in such a way that it could concievably benefit him or harm another candidate - had Sean started campaigning early or exceeded spending limits or in some way attempted to influence the election in his favour outside of the rules, I'd be all in favour of excluding him. But for something so minor, it seems a pity to prevent someone who genuinely wants to do the job when every year there are joke candidates who literally couldn't care less whether they get in or not; moreover, there's no doubt in my mind that it would undermine whoever eventually did get in when one of the three candidates was excluded before the race even started.

Keeping Sean out of the race makes the SU look like an overly bureacratic, closed-off clique where insiders run against other insiders for the approval of insiders; allowing minor leniency with the red tape (24 hours delay on a payment can hardly be the greatest infraction of the rules ever committed) ensures a fair election where, within reason, everyone who wants to run is given a fair opportunity to do so.

Time Magazine

xeduCat wrote:

Surely you're not suggesting that the Electoral Commission should be influenced by lobbying, Ibid?

Of course not. I would, however, like to see if any of the Dep Pres candidates would openly bemoan his inclusion.

King.Penguin

rules are made to keep certain ideals in place. therefore, in the right context, rules can be broken. this chap should be allowed enter. anybody who disagrees is trying to talk like a lawyer or is a prick.

Stargal

shay_562 wrote:

Had Sean started campaigning early or exceeded spending limits or in some way attempted to influence the election in his favour outside of the rules, I'd be all in favour of excluding him. But for something so minor, it seems a pity to prevent someone who genuinely wants to do the job when every year there are joke candidates who literally couldn't care less whether they get in or not; moreover, there's no doubt in my mind that it would undermine whoever eventually did get in when one of the three candidates was excluded before the race even started.

Keeping Sean out of the race makes the SU look like an overly bureacratic, closed-off clique where insiders run against other insiders for the approval of insiders; allowing minor leniency with the red tape (24 hours delay on a payment can hardly be the greatest infraction of the rules ever committed) ensures a fair election where, within reason, everyone who wants to run is given a fair opportunity to do so.

Well said. Paying his deposit a little after the other candidates doesn't give Sean any kind of advantage at all, nor does it affect the other candidates. The rules are in place to ensure a fair and equal election is held. but this is a relatively minor issue that doesn't affect the campaign or the outcome.

Also if there was indeed some ambiguity and Sean wasn't clearly told about paying the deposit then surely it wasn't his fault? Although it's hard to tell since we only have the word of his official spokesperson at the moment...

PHB

Keeping Sean out of the race makes the SU look like an overly bureacratic, closed-off clique where insiders run against other insiders for the approval of insiders

Makes it look like it?

I'm fairly sure a R.O.N. campaign is being run, it'll be interesting to see the reaction of it.

Stargal

So has a decision been made on Sean running?

I heard that the EC made a decision at SU Council, at which an emergency motion was defeated supporting Sean Conway. As I wasn't there, and the EC decision has yet to hit cyperspace, I can't be any clearer then that.

europerson

Sleazus, Bogger and Seán were in the Hist at the same time as I was today, and they seemed pretty resigned that they were just going to let it go.

Stargal

They shouldn't.

Crash

In all fairness, even at council no effort was actually made to have sean reinstated on the ballot - the motion simply said it regretted what occured. so seemingly they were resigned before that? I mean, I didn't really get any idea as to what the motion was intended to achieve - maybe one of the lads could clear it up for me?

osd

&#231 wrote: »

In all fairness, even at council no effort was actually made to have sean reinstated on the ballot - the motion simply said it regretted what occured. so seemingly they were resigned before that? I mean, I didn't really get any idea as to what the motion was intended to achieve - maybe one of the lads could clear it up for me?

From casual conversation with them during the meeting they didn't seem to know that they required a mandate for a motion to be of any use.
Sean seemingly had manifestos and posters ready to go before he ran so I kinda feel for him but then again by bending rules you set precedents which can be very dangerous in the long run!

King.Penguin

osd wrote:

bending rules you set precedents which can be very dangerous in the long run!

students union ffs

xeduCat

I think OSD means dangerous in the sense of 'the SU follows rules so that it doesn't end up spending all your money on lawyers' rather than 'the SU follows rules otherwise the Iranians will bomb the college'.

Time Magazine

xeduCat wrote:

I think OSD means dangerous in the sense of 'the SU follows rules so that it doesn't end up spending all your money on lawyers' rather than 'the SU follows rules otherwise the Iranians will bomb the college'.

Yeah, the SU haven't spent all its money on lawyers in a European court challenge in a good fifteen years or so .

But I hear USI are making up for it this year.

melekalikimaka

John treacy in the end came third last year, and considering he has a campaign team a tenth the size of quinns or harmos, wasnt bad going, and the work he's being doin in SU should help him alot, what are the other two in, is there a bess vote this year?

melekalikimaka

melekalikimaka wrote:

the work he's being doin in SU should help him alot

Can you please explain what work? I was always under the impression that a Class Rep always does a lot more work then the Chair of Council.

melekalikimaka

what do you want to to explain? the role of chair?

No, what work he has been doing in the SU. You said he has been doing work, so I'm curious as to what work.

PHB

I'm also curious. I'm also very curious to see who outside some of the SU will vote for him?
btw, there is always the BESS vote. I'm fairly sure the majority of BESS first years vote, which is about 350 votes, whichis a large part of the election.

xeduCat

You are right, at least from the stats I did a few years back. In fact, the turnout in a lot of large undergrad courses is higher than is generally assumed...actual turnout is announced as 25% of eligible voters (or whatever) but that really means 1% of some categories and 75% of others. Here are the results of the exercise I conducted; bear in mind that without a multi-year study and control factors it is not too useful (as the nature of elections means that the background of candidates and so on have a big impact).

(these numbers relate to 2004/5: first number is actual votes, second number is actual student numbers, third number is percentage. Footnotes omitted but they mostly dealt with what was included inside a category (like Law = including Law and Language) for convenience).

Arts and BESS
Law 182 302 60%
Arts (Letters) SH 100 265 38%
Arts (Humanities) SH 163 443 37%
BESS (degree) 507 879 58%
BESS (other courses) 75 198 38%
His/Pol, Phil/Pol 64 103 62%
European Studies 79 106 75%
Business & Language 46 115 40%

Engineering
Engineering 326 646 50%
CS, Ling & Language 12 24 50%
MEMS/MSISS 47 145 32%
CS/ICT 75 234 32%

Science
Science Freshman 298 581 51%
Science Sophister 93 462 20%
Pharmacy 144 280 51%
Other Sci. courses 98 190 52%
Maths/TP 100 204 49%

Health Sciences
Nursing (JF/JS only) 177 431 41%
Medicine 180 687 28%
Therapy Schools 139 268 52%
Dentistry 19 193 10%

Teachers (Affiliates)
Primary 158 629 25%
St. Cats 11 77 14%

TSM
All TSM 523 1176 44%

Others
Exchange In 79 474 17%
TAP Foundation 6 20 30%

Turnout <5%:
SS B.Ed. (3 votes)
Computer Science (Eve) (5 votes)
Centre for Deaf Studies (1 vote)
Dental Diplomas/Certs (1 vote)

No votes cast (mostly part-time)
Diploma in European Painting
Diploma in Acting Studies
Diploma in Addiction
Diploma in Counselling
Diploma in Pharmacy
One year: Nursing (BNS)
One year: Midwifery (BNS)
One year: Access to Nursing
Evening: Business and IT (Eve)
Church of Ireland College: Theology (Divinity)
Human Nutrition (shared with DIT)
Nursing SF (on rotation)

Postgraduate students:
All postgrads: 86 (of 4913)

shay_562

John treacy in the end came third last year, and considering he has a campaign team a tenth the size of quinns or harmos, wasnt bad going, and the work he's being doin in SU should help him alot, what are the other two in, is there a bess vote this year?

Really? According to the count figures linked upthread, Treacy came 4th last year, after John McGuirk. Andy Byrne was a GMB-head and used to run the Greens. The BESS vote is hard to call (a lot of it depends on who gives a better address), but since three of the first year BESS reps are GMB people, I'd call it for Andy.

shay_562

shay_562 wrote:

Really? According to the count figures linked upthread, Treacy came 4th last year, after John McGuirk.

He got the fourth highest first preferences, but came third by a whisker after transfers.

Crash

To get back to elections in general, posters are up!

and manifestos will begin circulating pretty damn soon. so what are the opinions?

best poster/worst poster?
best manifesto/worst manifesto?

g'wan folks, spill

xebec

I like the look of the colour posters! Far more eye-catching than previous years...

Best: Claire Tighe (but I'm slightly biased ) and cloasely followed by Neil McGough
Worst: Ray Healy - doesn't actually have his surname on the poster, ballots are ordered by surnames

I wanna see some manifestoes! Came through Front Arch @ about 9.30, and have been around the Hamilton for last half hour and haven't seen a single one!