How to make Union elections interesting

[James Shield]

Quoting RJ Covino from 00:37, 8th Jan 2008
The system as created by Ben et al. was sound; however, as it was never properly implemented, particularly on the SRC side, there are, now that at least one St Andrews generation has come and gone, difficulties.

How so?

[BenEsq]

My my, what an awful lot of hacks there seem to be on this thread...

[hr]

Lions and tigers and bears...Oh my!

[David Bean]

So what are you here for, to make up the numbers?

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[exnihilo]

Crazy, isn't it? On a thread entitled "How to make Union elections interesting" people who have been involved in said same elections should be posting. What a world.

[RJ Covino]

Quoting James Shield from 11:10, 8th Jan 2008
How so?

In a nutshell, I'd say it was mostly down to a lack of faith in / willingness to work with the system on the part of several DoR's in a row. Instead, there was much time wasted on failed attempts to re-revamp the entire thing instead of focusing on mentoring/training and getting those elected to the various lesser positions to do the work they were elected to do. As Rob Fett demonstrated, a seemingly minor and oft-cited "useless" position such as SRC Member for Library and Learning Resources can, in fact, be effective.

I'd also like to offer the following insight as to the issue of Union overhauling, more by way of a caveat than anything else - the system as it exists at present largely came about following an effort to eliminate certain positions perceived to be useless...

[Bonnie]

After reading this thread, I really really really want to sit in the Main Bar and drink Tennents.

And I keep thinking that today must be Tuesday.

[Dickie]

Quoting Bonnie from 20:17, 13th Jan 2008
After reading this thread... I keep thinking that today must be Tuesday.

It is!

Remember VOTE R.O.N.

[hr]

http://facebook.com/p.php?id=37106107&l=217e435e0a

[Jono]

Quoting Dickie from 18:13, 15th Jan 2008

Quoting Bonnie from 20:17, 13th Jan 2008
After reading this thread... I keep thinking that today must be Tuesday.

It is!

Remember VOTE R.O.N.

[hr]

http://facebook.com/p.php?id=37106107&l=217e435e0a

The nominations haven't even been opened yet. What's the point?

[hr]

BY FIRE; BE PURGED!


http://www.myspace.com/tauntra

[exnihilo]

Perhaps Dickie feels that no matter who stands, having somebody else would be better?

[James Shield]

Of course; even the best of candidates automatically discredit themselves by having the onerous mark of candidacy in Union elections against their names.

[current_student]

Wise words from someone no longer here, who graduated years ago and has as much experience of the current political scene and working of the union as of the weather at the north pole.

Quoting exnihilo from 23:23, 3rd Jan 2008
All voting positions need to be cross campus? What errant twaddle. A myth that's been put about for some years and which is simply that: a myth.

The SRC can, and should, elect from specific constituencies - every other one does.

Sine suffragio is not a real term, it was made up (by me) as a joke.

The SRC should either be large, representative, and meet infrequently but have a smaller Executive Committee for day to day matters as it did once. Or it should be small and meet more frequently, be more managerial and devolve many decisions to sub-committees as it also did once. What it cannot be is a large, frequently meeting, managerial committee.

[Guest]

Quoting Steveo from 19:24, 3rd Jan 2008

My personal preference is to shrik the SRC back closer to the size it used to be, with less pointless positions.

Such as "Men's Issues Officer"?

[Careba]

Sorry this discussion is turning into alphabet soup. So I have a question relating back to the original post namely what are all the positions on the SRC/SSC delete as applicable for?


And more specifically what are the womens issues/mens issues which mean we have to have a rep for? I mean the only ones I can think of are for provision of various things in toilets but I may just being slow.

Also if the university is meant to have equal rights for the sexes surely these positions are outdated and dare I say it patronising? The same could be said about other positions relating to race and sexuality.

[Guest]

1) Leave SSC alone.

2) For SRC, which does very little compared to SSC, elect four undergraduate representatives (by year of intake) and four postgrad reps.

Allow postgrads to vote for post-grad reps and allow students to vote for their year of intake- 1st years voting for 1st-year reps, 2nd years voting for 2nd-year reps(or, in the case of those on the 5-year plan, have them vote in 4th-year elections) etc.

This way, students will know who they're actually voting for, competition for posts will be fairer and the elected officers will be more accountable.

3) That gives SRC 20 members.

4) Carve-up remits in committee.

5) Lather, rinse, repeat.

[Guest]

I voted for Dr. Bunsen Honeydew and I truly believe he would have totally transformed union politics. Is he still knocking around?

[James Shield]

Anyone who's followed the various things discussed on this thread might be interested to learn that last night the SRC agreed upon the following:

- The size of SRC has been reduced
- Some positions have been renamed to more relevant titles
- All elections will now take place in March, with the exception of postgraduate positions
- PG positions will be elected in October
- There will be an enhanced focus on national campaigns and community relations

I've uploaded details of the above to the 'SRC Motions' section of this page:

http://www.yourunion.net/content/index.php?page=17484

Minutes will be added once they're available.

[Al]

While the abolition of many of the posts is welcome, I think that the SRC may be throwing the baby out with the bath water. I presume Member for First Year has just been missed off the list of abolished posts, and so instead of having year reps - posts that no one seems to have had a problem with - the SRC will have sub-honours and honours reps? First, why can't the SRC get away from cumbersome titles? Second, what is the rationale behind that?

It's good though that the Association is reintroducing limiting voting for certain posts to people within the appropriate constituencies. It would be even better if voting for all posts representing constituencies was limited to members of those constituencies.

[James Shield]

Quoting Al from 23:20, 20th Feb 2008
I presume Member for First Year has just been missed off the list of abolished posts

Not so - this position has been preserved so that there is someone specifically tasked with stirring up interest in the SRC and the services it can provide among new entrant students. I believe we also changed the position to 'SRC Member from First Year', meaning they can only be elected by first years.

the SRC will have sub-honours and honours reps? First, why can't the SRC get away from cumbersome titles? Second, what is the rationale behind that?

The new positions were very nearly 'SRC Member for Academic Issues (Sub Honours)' and so on, but were shortened a little bit at my suggestion. The rationale, according to the Exec document circulated prior to last night's SRC, was as follows:

"The only real issues that [year rep] positions deal with that can not be dealt with elsewhere are those of an academic nature. We propose that the position of SRC Member for Academic Issues is created, and alongside the SRC Education Officer ensures that all years are effectively represented."

SRC then decided that there was a big difference between sub-honours and honours academic issues, and so created two of these positions with sub-honours and honours responsibilities respectively.

[Al]

How is a Member from First Year going to be elected from among first years in the March diet and still be a first year for their term of office? Won't they be in their second year for most of it?

[James Shield]

Yes, that's true. It's a difficult balance to get right - we wanted there to be someone to act especially as a liaison with first years, but we also wanted to move the elections to the March diet. If this position were elected in October along with the postgrad positions there would likely be a very low turnout, possibly resulting in a less-than-excellent candidate getting the job. It was also thought that a first year candidate elected in October - only a month or so after arriving in St Andrews - wouldn't really know what it was like to be a first year, whereas someone reaching the end of that year would know exactly what the experience entailed and what could be improved. Or at least, that was the rationale.