ELECTION RESULTS

[Bryn]

Quoting Jamie Potton from 10:03, 25th Apr 2005
I am still unconvinced as to the merits of yet further positions held by students. If the split to DoES will bring more commercial success, why not employ a professional, with the relevant experience and proven ability?

Because they tried it, and it was awful. A member of staff wouldn't necessarily do what was best for the students.

[hr]

http://bryn.ipfox.com

[Jamie potton]

They did try it: admittedly, quite some time ago, before you and I were even involved: I would admit that it was not successful, but given the mode in which the old VPC became an appointed sabbatical, and now an employee, surely there is some confidence in the merits of professionals?
The posts are different, yes, but both require expertise and experience: but are the best interests of students necessarily met by those who have not had to meet commercial deadlines, weigh up their responsiblities as part of their career, or have said "I'm going to run for a sabb, because all the sabbs want me to" (as I have heard myself). I have my doubts.
This is not about a professonal making profits - it is about bringing efficient services to the students after broad consultation with them and their representatives. That is in the interests of the students.

[exnihilo]

My thoughts...

Indeed, it was tried with one member of staff, and it didn't work. Was that due to the individual or to the structure? I was around at the time, and I know which one of those two I'd have said was at fault.

The alteration to the existing DoS post effectively took it out of existence. Elections should have been held for both new posts which have been creaded in its stead. Allowing a candidate to stand for a holding post in the hope that the one he was interested in will be created is not fair.

As to the vote fining, the decimals are an absurdity. The first preferences should have been counted, 25 removed from that first total for the people who were fined and then ALL second and third preferences counted as though nothing had happened. Anything else is grossly unfair, and if I were the candidate fined I would certainly be lodging an appeal.

And, before anyone has a go at me, I think I have a pretty good idea of how STV works as well.

[Marco Biagi]

Quoting exnihilo from 16:21, 25th Apr 2005
As to the vote fining, the decimals are an absurdity. The first preferences should have been counted, 25 removed from that first total for the people who were fined and then ALL second and third preferences counted as though nothing had happened. Anything else is grossly unfair, and if I were the candidate fined I would certainly be lodging an appeal.

And, before anyone has a go at me, I think I have a pretty good idea of how STV works as well.

Alright then, I'll use more complicated language. I know your knowledge of STV is strong, so I would say you are deliberately misrepresenting the system by calling decimals an absurdity when they are in fact extremely common in an STV election. The fine was levied against the candidate, yes? Not against the voters who chose the candidate. In that case it makes a lot more sense to count it as if the candidate had got 25 more votes than they needed through a surplus over quota and that they should then be redistributed as normal.

Moreover, by not redistributing immediately, one is destroying the entirety of the votes of 25 persons rather than simply destroying their first preferences. By not counting the 25 votes as part of the first preferenced candidate (say Choong), you can alter when that candidate gets redistributed (if at all). However, by not counting the 25 votes *at all*, you can alter when the other preferenced candidates get redistributed. Yet since the penalty is supposedly only being levied on the first preferenced candidate, it is unfair to carry over the penalty to the others. It is also penalising the voter, since the crucial point of STV is that every vote counts at every point - the fine, without an instant redistribution of it, would trap the vote in a bottleneck until eventually the candidate first preferenced is redistributed.

Simple, no?

[hr]

No more elections. Except tragically watching this General Election.
And hello Mum.

[exnihilo]

Nope. Still failing to see why just docking 25 mathematically after the first count and the continuing to distribute all the votes as per usual wouldn't have been better.

[Atangaladhion]

Quoting Pender Native from 14:14, 25th Apr 2005
Could we be given badges, or stickers or a felt tip pen squiggle on our foreheads or something when we vote? After I voted on th friday I was mobbed five times by various groups of campaigners, and it gets annoying. I understand they want to get everyone's attention, but is there anyway of making them leave the people who have already voted alone?

Those of use mobbing people to get them to vote were asking the same question.

[BenEsq]

Whilst I agree that it's important that the Association provides for students, might I point out that it is a Students' Association - aiming to be run for students by students. I'm glad it's been pointed out that it isn't a matter of professionals making profits, but employing a professional limits Student participation to an unacceptable level. Focusing on Services (although the only reason Associations exist in Scotland is that they were created by Victorian legislation to provide a means for Student Representation), if the Association is to be meaningful and useful and fun for students a staff DoS might have more experience but would deny students:
the ability to get experience and skills of their own,
accountability (staff are accountable to the Staffing Committee),
and cost a lot more.

As for sabb annointed sabbs...
I'm no fan of dynasties nor incest, just look at the genetic stagnation of the Royal Family to see the dangers. New thinking or rather...radically different/conflicting thinking is denied by a sabbatical choosing a successor, but I beleive that students aren't naive and won't vote for someone who is incompetent.
As for new sabbatical positions...
Now, if you elected Chris on his society strengths then could it be argued you've been screwed over as a voter? We (majority) elected him to the position of DoS on that position's remit and by doing so express confidence in his abilities to handle that. So, if he chooses to take the Events and Services aspect of the position then it cannot be said that he doesn't have a mandate to do it.
I agree that the two new positions should have been run alongside each other, but because of the difficulties of getting the split sorted that would have meant running it next year. Yes, candidates for SSC Officer positions would have known that the split might not have got through, but ran in the hope that it would, because they cared about the positions and thought they'd do a good job.

Mistakes happen and yes there are some people who don't do a great job in the Association, but if you think they don't and you can... run for positions when you next get the chance and/or go along to SSC or SRC meetings on alternate Tuesdays (7.30pm) in the Committee Room in the Association Building...not to just rant, but perhaps give constructive criticism and join in and help.


[hr]

Lions and tigers and bears...Oh my!

[exnihilo]

Quoting Pender Native from 14:14, 25th Apr 2005
Could we be given badges ... or something when we vote? I understand they want to get everyone's attention, but is there anyway of making them leave the people who have already voted alone?

The Charities Campaign used to sell those very things, proceeds to their good causes, and they were very handy indeed.

[adam freeman]

Yes. Chris does have a mandate.
Yes. You should have waited till the 'split decision' was made before having the first election. Things like this don't HAVE to take an age to sort out.
BUT. (feminists look away now). Wouldn't there have been some sense in taking the opportunity -- given the close result in the DoS election -- to ensure you wouldn't end up with an all-male Sabb team by electing both candidates and -- because he won the thing -- allowing Chris have first pick of the new roles? As it is, yet another all-white/all-male group seems to have risen to the top. <>
Oh. And I did once run for a Union position (Without Portfolio) but was disastrously disqualified for what was a perfectly innocent public defamation of my half-witted opponent.

[Mr Comedy]

Quoting BenEsq from 03:00, 26th Apr 2005
just look at the genetic stagnation of the Royal Family to see the dangers.

Oi! The Royal Family are upstanding people, fantastic monarchs and pillars of British society.
Go wash your mouth out with soap, young man!

[Tweedle-Dum]

Quoting adam freeman from 11:59, 26th Apr 2005
Yes. Chris does have a mandate.
Yes. You should have waited till the 'split decision' was made before having the first election. Things like this don't HAVE to take an age to sort out.
BUT. (feminists look away now). Wouldn't there have been some sense in taking the opportunity -- given the close result in the DoS election -- to ensure you wouldn't end up with an all-male Sabb team by electing both candidates and -- because he won the thing -- allowing Chris have first pick of the new roles? As it is, yet another all-white/all-male group seems to have risen to the top. <>
Oh. And I did once run for a Union position (Without Portfolio) but was disastrously disqualified for what was a perfectly innocent public defamation of my half-witted opponent.

Firstly, there is NOTHING wrong with the all white, all male running of the Union. That's just the way it turned out; if anyone really cared about normalising the gender balance then they'd have voted in girls, or girls would have run on the basis that they are female. Secondly; the SOAS runs Oriental and African studies,so a black officer position seems appropriate. Here it's just not. Race is not an issue.

[hr]

Live by the sword, die by the arrow.

[exnihilo]

Quoting adam freeman from 11:59, 26th Apr 2005As it is, yet another all-white/all-male group seems to have risen to the top.

You might want to go and have a look at the boards listing sabbatical officers - it would reassure you on gender balance. We've also had non-white sabbatical officers over the years , but in a university which is overwhelmingly white it's hardly surprising that the elected officers are also. We certainly used to also have an Ethnic Minorities Officer, and I presume we retain something of the sort now.

So, in short, you know not whereof you speak.

[Steveo]

The past 2 sab teams have had women.

[hr]

IMAGE:www.conservatives.com/UploadedFiles/GRAPHIC%5CDOWNLOADTHUMB%5Cthumb-torchlandwordspos.jpg

[flarewearer]

It doesnt fucking matter what sex or colour the Sabbs are as long as they get the job done! Take your PC bullshit elsewhere

[hr]

[s]It's 106 miles to Chicago. We've got a full tank of gas and half a pack of cigarettes. It's dark and we're wearing sunglasses. Hit it.[/s]
http://www.magnificentoctopus.com/

[exnihilo]

Indeed. Couldn't agree more. My post was merely made to point out that the assertion that the sabbaticals are predominantly white and male is true only of this year and therefore, in the greater scheme, not relevant.

[niall]

Quoting Steveo from 15:59, 26th Apr 2005
The past 2 sab teams have had women.

the previous two also had female members too, Hannah wright as VPS 02-03 and Danna Green as President 01-02

[hr]

do you have a tastyspoon?

http://www.tastyspoon.com/forum

IMAGE:www.danasoft.com/vipersig.jpg

[adam freeman]

Yes two female sabbaticals in the past two years. Interesting...

Post-Feminist Studies, PF1003 -- Exam

QUESTION 1
Did Jessica Lynch know what she was getting into? She is, after all, only a girl.

QUESTION 2
"After Nicola Heaney you took the VPC/DoC position out of the hands of a student and gave it to a 'professional'.
After Bonnie Ryder you split the position in two 'because it's too much for one person'." Discuss.


And I wasn't making principled stance in favour of 'gender balance' at all. simply the pragmatic point that you really should have stuck when in fact you twisted. Not that David Bean isn't an 'Ace' candidate, but, in the circumstances, four of a kind was never likely to be the strongest hand. ((Excuse metaphor, at least i didn't start referring to the male sabbs as spades))

[exnihilo]

Erm, 2 in two years. More than that you'll find. Really, look at the boards. Since the formation of the Association we've had more or less even numbers, and until very recently more women than men. We've had black sabs, we've had chinese sabs. What the hell do you want???

Incidentally, you would also note that if you took the trouble to look at those boards that Vince Barnes as President effectively split the job in two (creating VPR) because it was too much for one person. He came after several women, and the first VPR was a woman. So your point really is invalid.

[Nell]

Quoting adam freeman from 16:40, 26th Apr 2005



After Bonnie Ryder you split the position in two 'because it's too much for one person'." Discuss.

Youve missed the point entirley. The position is not being split for the sake of the person holding the position but for the sanity of those voluteers working under them. As a former ents officer i think this move is the best thing the union can do for its incredibly hard working voulenteers. Positions such as the societies officer and ents officer (now called ents convernor) demand a huge amount of time and are quite stressful. I myself failed an exam becasue of the time i was spending at the union and many officers before have failed to graduate.
We shouldnt think of this so much as splittling the position, but rather adding another one, in order to allow the sabaticals (who are employed) to take pressure off the volunteers. Its something that has been needed for along time and having experienced the stress that voulnteer positions can place upon you i whole heartedly support this move, hopefuly it will allow future voulenteers to pass their degrees not fall apart AND feel they are giving their all to the job, cause i promise you without the added support that this will give, it just isnt possiable.

[David Bean]

Isn't it more important that the sabb team should contain a diverse range of personalities and characters? Yes, the fact that we're all male is one way in which we're similar, but we're very different in other ways, and all get on perfectly well and can complement one another.

I'm glad the electorate didn't realise/care that we'd have an all-male sabb team if I won, anyway!

BTW, on the HoMMD position, it strikes me that this is one where the incumbent really doesn't need a democratic mandate, but just to be able to do the job well. That differs from, say, DoSDA, because I'll be working directly with student groups and putting forward a range of policies I campaigned on. The only good thing about the elected VPC was that it was pretty obvious which candidate to vote for by how good their campaign was (which tends to raise the question of why the later VPC campaigns had a strong tendency to suck...)