Election Turnout

[Andrew Mackenzie]

Hi!

What was the turnout like in previous years elections?

Anyone have any predictions for what it will be on Friday?

Cheers!
Andrew

[Freaker]

I'll be optimistic and say we get somewhere over 2000 students to cast their vote this time. I think last year it was just below that number, and even though I have no idea how high-profile the campaigns are this year compared to last, I have a feeling that this election is more broadly contested (and that between some very able candidates!)


PS: Just noted that when posting, there is a link to the list of candidates from last year's election - any way that could be updated ?

[hr]

I try to take one day at a time, but sometimes several days attack me at once.

[Steveo]

1939 last year (approx. 24%).

We're hoping for over 2300 this year.

Stephen - Deputy Senior Elections Officer.

[hr]

Get off my internet.

[Al]

And they hope to have the count finished before Easter.

[Oli]

Total this year is 1802.

[Thackary]

(And well done to Royce for guessing the closest figure, with 1794. If anyone's in the Main Bar just now - ask him to buy you a drink!)

[enola48]

To anyone who complains about St Andrews lack of turn out at elections and the general apathy of the student body should try coming down to Manchester. There was a turn out of only 1200 at their elections last week for a student population of about 30,000! On reflection I think St Andrews does quite well!

[enola48]

To anyone who complains about St Andrews lack of turn out at elections and the general apathy of the student body should try coming down to Manchester. There was a turn out of only 1200 at their elections last week for a student population of about 30,000! On reflection I think St Andrews does quite well!

[Andrew Mackenzie]

Any suggestions as to why turnout was down (even just slightly) this year and didn't come close to the hoped 2000+? It's a pity - everything (the good weather, close races) seemed to suggest it would be high

[Steveo]

I blame it on the candidates, myself.

[hr]

Get off my internet.

[Andrew Mackenzie]

In what sense? The calibre of the candidates themselves or the campaigning?

[RandomMusings]

I have to admit, there were a lot of candidates not campaigning at all. Whether this is because they were unopposed, or whether it is because they didn't really want to run but were forced into it at the last minute, I don't know. If there are less candidates in the race for positions, their friends are less inclined to come out and vote as they have no competition - let's face it, RON is most unlikely to win an election.
To me, the atmosphere did not seem quite as good as last year, which is a shame. The counts were exciting though. All in all, a big well done to the EOC and all the candidates (and the voters) for making it through the week.

[hr]

Phil is me name. But one day it may be Cap'n Jack....

[Jono]

Quoting Andrew Mackenzie from 16:47, 16th Mar 2008
In what sense? The calibre of the candidates themselves or the campaigning?

Ignore him.

Quoting RandomMusings from 21:49, 16th Mar 2008
I have to admit, there were a lot of candidates not campaigning at all. Whether this is because they were unopposed, or whether it is because they didn't really want to run but were forced into it at the last minute, I don't know. If there are less candidates in the race for positions, their friends are less inclined to come out and vote as they have no competition - let's face it, RON is most unlikely to win an election.
To me, the atmosphere did not seem quite as good as last year, which is a shame. The counts were exciting though. All in all, a big well done to the EOC and all the candidates (and the voters) for making it through the week.

[hr]

Phil is me name. But one day it may be Cap'n Jack....

You're right. A good friend of mine ran unopposed. But she still turned out on the day! Says something about the opposed candidates who didn't I think!

Democracy: You're doing it wrong!

[maenad]

Definitely wasn't the same atmosphere as last year. It seemed really quiet.

I put posters up everywhere, made a facebook group and made flyers for some residences and the day, much of which I spent outside the library. I saw one poster for my opponent and I know they had a facebook group, but that was it - and they beat me by 200 votes. I don't think my 100 words was bad so I have to ask whether publicity puts people off or if it's just a popularity contest in the end.

[hr]

Tommy can you hear me?

[RandomMusings]

Maenad,

I agree with you - I have been wondering for a while whether the elections are more of a popularity contest than anything else. In the position I ran for, my competitor didn't run a campaign at all - only attended the hecklings - but still scored 600 votes on the day, whereas I was out all day at the library and union. Fortunately I won, but it was close.

Might be an interesting topic for a debate on a Wednesday night if anyone out there in debates-land is listening....

[hr]

Phil is me name. But one day it may be Cap'n Jack....

[TC]

I don't think that it is a popularity contest, despite what it might seem. Even on a relitively low turnout of 1800 one has to win more votes than popularity can account for. Psycologists argue that a human can only properly know 300 people. To win an election required at the very least 600 votes or more. Therefore even the most popular people need to appeal beyond their core vote.

This is not to say that being popular and having a strong core vote is not very important, it is a great asset. However I do think that it does take more to win a position than simply popularity.

One other factor to remember is that the biggest personnal votes are for those running for either the Sabatical positions or those running a subcommittee.

Finally regarding debates anyone is welcome to bring an ajournment debate on Wednesday on the issue if they wish. The main debate is on the motion "This House Believes that the terrorist threat is overstated" and promises to be very good. If anyone wants to run an adjournment debate email me at tprc@ and I will explain how to do it to them.



[hr]

Per Ardua ad Astra

[TC]

I don't think that it is a popularity contest, despite what it might seem. Even on a relitively low turnout of 1800 one has to win more votes than popularity can account for. Psycologists argue that a human can only properly know 300 people. To win an election required at the very least 600 votes or more. Therefore even the most popular people need to appeal beyond their core vote.

This is not to say that being popular and having a strong core vote is not very important, it is a great asset. However I do think that it does take more to win a position than simply popularity.

One other factor to remember is that the biggest personnal votes are for those running for either the Sabatical positions or those running a subcommittee.

Finally regarding debates anyone is welcome to bring an ajournment debate on Wednesday on the issue if they wish. The main debate is on the motion "This House Believes that the terrorist threat is overstated" and promises to be very good. If anyone wants to run an adjournment debate email me at tprc@ and I will explain how to do it to them.



[hr]

Per Ardua ad Astra

[TC]

I don't think that it is a popularity contest, despite what it might seem. Even on a relitively low turnout of 1800 one has to win more votes than popularity can account for. Psycologists argue that a human can only properly know 300 people. To win an election required at the very least 600 votes or more. Therefore even the most popular people need to appeal beyond their core vote.

This is not to say that being popular and having a strong core vote is not very important, it is a great asset. However I do think that it does take more to win a position than simply popularity.

One other factor to remember is that the biggest personnal votes are for those running for either the Sabatical positions or those running a subcommittee.

Finally regarding debates anyone is welcome to bring an ajournment debate on Wednesday on the issue if they wish. The main debate is on the motion "This House Believes that the terrorist threat is overstated" and promises to be very good. If anyone wants to run an adjournment debate email me at tprc@ and I will explain how to do it to them.



[hr]

Per Ardua ad Astra

[TC]

I don't think that it is a popularity contest, despite what it might seem. Even on a relitively low turnout of 1800 one has to win more votes than popularity can account for. Psycologists argue that a human can only properly know 300 people. To win an election required at the very least 600 votes or more. Therefore even the most popular people need to appeal beyond their core vote.

This is not to say that being popular and having a strong core vote is not very important, it is a great asset. However I do think that it does take more to win a position than simply popularity.

One other factor to remember is that the biggest personnal votes are for those running for either the Sabatical positions or those running a subcommittee.

Finally regarding debates anyone is welcome to bring an ajournment debate on Wednesday on the issue if they wish. The main debate is on the motion "This House Believes that the terrorist threat is overstated" and promises to be very good. If anyone wants to run an adjournment debate email me at tprc@ and I will explain how to do it to them.


[hr]

Per Ardua ad Astra

[Jono]

Says the guy who comfortably won with a large margin! Besides, you don't need to "Know" people properly. It's more like name-recognition.

This probably isn't the best way to start a working relationship with my peers; But I'm disappointed with certain victorious candidates whose campaigns were quite lazy. People who couldn't be bothered to get posters up, attend the hall evens, or even turn out on the day. Is this the sort of effort we can expect post-spring-break?

Considering how important Elections are, Perhaps this calls for proper motion in the near future, rather than just an Adjournment debate. "This House has No Confidence in the Association Elections." Although coming from a Sub-Committee, it sounds more like a war-cry than a debate!