SU elections (Full time and part time) MOD NOTE POST #1 and #26

Ficheall · 08-03-2012 5:32pm

Lockstep wrote: »

Based on today:

Curley will reach the quota. He had a veritable machine out.

Stitt will narrowly beat Kitt in 1st preferences, transfers will be up in the air making this a tight race.

Dami will perform well in welfare and will be elected without reaching the quota.

Have you any stats, or is this purely observational conjecture on your part?
(This is curiosity as opposed to criticism...)

joeKel73 · 08-03-2012 5:39pm

Took the online voting system for a spin... worked very well. It should be pushed next year as a main voting option, you would definitely get a better turnout.

A lot of canvassers on the concourse today, and outside Aras na Mac Leinn... but they're all just chatting to each other, waste of time!! I had to walk through them on the concourse 4 times today and didn't get stopped or asked to vote by any canvassers. The only person to approach me was Sarah McCarthy herself who asked me if I'd voted yet.

Did get asked twice during the week to vote Yes in the referendum though.

As a postgrad I hadn't heard from any of the candidates all week as we're not in lectures - I think there's a big pool of potential voters being missed out on there.

Ficheall wrote: »

Aye, you've to call up to the SU to be registered to vote online.
It fits with the rest of the election...

You could register on their website before Wednesday.

Nailz wrote: »

It's a shame the has only been a campaign FOR rather than AGAINST, I haven't seen any posters or canvassers against it anyway...

There was a bit of a campaign as there's flyers in the IT cafe urging people to vote no.

Lockstep · 08-03-2012 5:44pm

Ficheall wrote: »

Have you any stats, or is this purely observational conjecture on your part?
(This is curiosity as opposed to criticism...)

These are conjecture based on my part.

STV took an opinion poll with the results leaked already although not gonna divulge them, they'll be released tonight!

Lockstep · 08-03-2012 5:47pm

J o e wrote: »

As a postgrad I hadn't heard from any of the candidates all week as we're not in lectures - I think there's a big pool of potential voters being missed out on there.

As a postgrad myself, the places postgrads congregate aren't of much use to canvassers. Postgrad classes are small so there's not much point doing shoutouts whereas unless you pass by the steps at the concourse or the college bar, candidates have too few canvassers to go anywhere else.

joeKel73 · 08-03-2012 5:52pm

Yeah don't know how they'd target them (/us). SIN election edition gave a good overview of the candidates though.

I suspect the % turnout from postgrads is very high compared to undergrads, we've generally be around for longer and so often have more interested in how things are run around here.

Ruire · 08-03-2012 6:12pm

bildo wrote: »

Do you actually think that the production cost of a cup of tea is anywhere near 40c?

Do you actually think a wholesaler sells at production cost?

Nailz · 08-03-2012 6:13pm

Ficheall wrote: »

Care to expand on that one?

I've seen a couple of posters against the motion, but overall, due to phrasing, it's difficult to tell whether 'yes' or 'no' is the that "opposes free speech" or "prevents fascists".

The posters are confusing if you're just glancing at them; "Vote Yes to No Platform" doesn't really say much to the passer-by. The only posters I can see on my side of the campus are those in favour of the policy.

As regards my views on the policy itself, having just read the two articles in the election edition of SIN representing both sides of the debate respectively, the last paragraph of the article speaking against the policy summarises my views on the whole thing adequately;

"History has shown that suppressing [racist/fascistic] views doesn't work. Bring them into the open and challenge them head on. Until you can prove why their opinions are wrong then, while we may disagree with them, we should defend their right to say them."

Ficheall · 08-03-2012 6:58pm

Nailz wrote: »

As regards my views on the policy itself, having just read the two articles in the election edition of SIN representing both sides of the debate respectively, the last paragraph of the article speaking against the policy summarises my views on the whole thing adequately;

"History has shown that suppressing [racist/fascistic] views doesn't work. Bring them into the open and challenge them head on. Until you can prove why their opinions are wrong then, while we may disagree with them, we should defend their right to say them."

Have you actually read the policy itself?

As for that remarkably cliched ending - it's making the foolish assumption that the people you're dealing with are rational and open to "debate".
Do you argue with the crazy man ranting on the street? Or the bible-bashers? Or the LifeSoc people?
I don't. And I don't encourage them by engaging them in conversation. I'm not going to change their minds.
When there is an idiot on boards.ie, for example, posting something that is clearly complete and utter bs and refusing to listen to reasoned and backed-up arguments from other posters without offering and justifications for their own assertions, you eventually stop responding them because (unless for entertainment purposes) you don't feed the trolls (or crazy people).

Like almost everything else to do with the SU, though, this policy has been rather vaguely structured and will be poorly implemented, so it makes shag all difference whether it's voted in or not.

leeroybrown · 08-03-2012 7:29pm

bildo wrote: »

Do you actually think that the production cost of a cup of tea is anywhere near 40c?

Ruire wrote: »

Do you actually think a wholesaler sells at production cost?

The cost price of a cup of tea in most of the cafés on campus will be around 8-10c. A coffee (americano) will be 40-50c. If you're supplying large volumes of tea from a Burco and brewed coffee from large pots into the cheapest unbranded cups you can buy then you'll be able to bring both those down a fair bit.

carolmarx · 08-03-2012 7:58pm

Shame to see how the campaign sunk even lower today. I personally overheard a man asking Evelyn Fennelly why she was still canvassing as a member of the Kitt campaign team had told him she had dropped out of the race... Pointless, dirty and shameful.

TheCosmicFrog · 08-03-2012 10:44pm

carolmarx wrote: »

I personally overheard a man asking Evelyn Fennelly why she was still canvassing as a member of the Kitt campaign team had told him she had dropped out of the race... Pointless, dirty and shameful.

Not to pick at straws here, but that sentence didn't make sense to me. What do you mean?

joeKel73 · 08-03-2012 10:55pm

Didn't make sense to me first time either, was reading it wrong... assume it's meant to be;

"I personally overheard a man asking Evelyn Fennelly why she was still canvassing, as a member of the Kitt campaign team had told him she had dropped out of the race"

and not

"I personally overheard a man asking Evelyn Fennelly why she was still canvassing as a member of the Kitt campaign team...."

carolmarx · 08-03-2012 11:36pm

J o e wrote: »

Didn't make sense to me first time either, was reading it wrong... assume it's meant to be;

"I personally overheard a man asking Evelyn Fennelly why she was still canvassing, as a member of the Kitt campaign team had told him she had dropped out of the race"

and not

"I personally overheard a man asking Evelyn Fennelly why she was still canvassing as a member of the Kitt campaign team...."

That's what I meant! I apologise for my lack of proof reading skills

paperpackages · 08-03-2012 11:44pm

Majority of the canvassers seemed tired today, wasn't hassled as much except by Stitt and co. I see there was a child canvassing for him today around the concourse; he really knows the right techniques to attract voters! It's a pity Kitt hadn't put in more of an effort with approaching people (from what I saw) and doing shout outs in lectures- he got my vote but quite a few remarked they hadn't heard of him.

Of course, people not being informed before voting was evident today. "What was that yes or no thing about" must have been the quote of the day! Because of this I don't think results of the referendum will be in anyway an accurate representation of how the majority of students feel on the issue.

Many heading down to the count tomorrow?

carolmarx · 08-03-2012 11:48pm

paperpackages wrote: »

Majority of the canvassers seemed tired today, wasn't hassled as much except by Stitt and co.

Sorry about that...

There was three kids by the way, his nephews that his brother brought in for a while. Only slightly better than Conor Healy's puppy last year.

Nailz · 08-03-2012 11:56pm

Ficheall wrote: »

Have you actually read the policy itself?

As for that remarkably cliched ending - it's making the foolish assumption that the people you're dealing with are rational and open to "debate".
Do you argue with the crazy man ranting on the street? Or the bible-bashers? Or the LifeSoc people?
I don't. And I don't encourage them by engaging them in conversation. I'm not going to change their minds.
When there is an idiot on boards.ie, for example, posting something that is clearly complete and utter bs and refusing to listen to reasoned and backed-up arguments from other posters without offering and justifications for their own assertions, you eventually stop responding them because (unless for entertainment purposes) you don't feed the trolls (or crazy people).

Like almost everything else to do with the SU, though, this policy has been rather vaguely structured and will be poorly implemented, so it makes shag all difference whether it's voted in or not.

First of all, yes I have read the policy.

I'm sure you know the difference between a formal debate with educated spectators and a just randomly stopping on the street to raise an issue with some roaring nutjob. Nobody is trying to change their — the facsists' — opinions, nor should anyone expect to no matter how intelligent the argument is.

The No Platform policy is a policy which is implemented because there is a middle recipient to whatever nonsense they fear a debater/speaker may be sprouting, hence why the call it a platform. I don't only believe that these gob****es should be allowed to speak if they are invited to, I believe we're better off having them come and letting the students decide that what they speak is complete and utter nonsense, saying that someone in the student body might be brainwashed by one debate, as some people are implying, is an insult to their intelligence.

And if you ban one speaker, you should ban all speakers.

dreamer8700 · 09-03-2012 12:19am

Looking forward to tomorrow's results. About the No Platform Policy, I heard that members of FEE and ULA were seen ripping down NO Posters on campus. Reminded me of the sort of thing fascist groups do (Mussolini's Blackshirts come to mind)- refuse to allow any other opinion besides their own to exist. I thought it was a bit weird really, since FEE /ULA are the ones pushing for 'anti-fascist' policies.

Ficheall · 09-03-2012 2:26am

Nailz wrote: »

First of all, yes I have read the policy.

Then you'll know that it won't actually prevent anyone from being invited and speaking, for starters. It's akin to the college officially washing their hands of RAG week for when things turn nasty. It's still up to the union whether their "opposition" is in the form of an official "quiet word", or an all-out protest involving the "higher-ups" etc.
I presume the "sharing a platform" bit isn't of sufficient interest to go into.

Nailz wrote: »

I'm sure you know the difference between a formal debate with educated spectators and a just randomly stopping on the street to raise an issue with some roaring nutjob. Nobody is trying to change their — the facsists' — opinions, nor should anyone expect to no matter how intelligent the argument is.

The difference, in some cases, might not be so great as you think. And you may give too much credit to the "educated spectators".
But anyway, if not to change the "fascist"'s views - then why 'challenge them head-on', as the article puts it?

Nailz wrote: »

The No Platform policy is a policy which is implemented because there is a middle recipient to whatever nonsense they fear a debater/speaker may be sprouting, hence why the call it a platform.

No, it's a policy which is implemented primarily, I believe, because the SU has a duty to look after the Welfare of its students, and inviting certain groups and the violent element they attract poses a threat to certain students simply by being on campus.

Nailz wrote: »

I don't only believe that these gob****es should be allowed to speak if they are invited to, I believe we're better off having them come and letting the students decide that what they speak is complete and utter nonsense, saying that someone in the student body might be brainwashed by one debate, as some people are implying, is an insult to their intelligence.

Well, there are some pretty stupid people in the college, but anyway - someone having "certain" views should not automatically entitle them to a platform, rather they should have to earn it - especially when the college is contributing financially, as it so often is, to the provision of this platform.

Nailz wrote: »

And if you ban one speaker, you should ban all speakers.

Sometimes speakers are invited solely for the purpose of creating controversy, because many students are trolls (not that trolling, in itself, is always a bad thing). Again, though, one should not feel obliged to indulge trolls.

Cathal O · 09-03-2012 2:30am

S:TV Galway have published an Exit poll, the results are as follows:

PRESIDENT
Paul Curley - 76%
William O'Brien - 16%
RON- 7%
Don't Know - 1%

EDUCATION
Conor Stitt - 38%
Rory Kitt - 32%
David Reilly - 23%
Evelyn Fennelly - 6%
Tatiana Bruvolyskya - 0%
RON - 1%

WELFARE
Dami Adebari - 60%
Robin Allen - 25%
Sarah McCarthy - 13%
RON - 2%

Ficheall · 09-03-2012 2:44am

With enemies like FEE, who needs friends?

Reillyman · 09-03-2012 2:54am

That exit poll was taken at around 1pm when roughly 900 ballots had been cast, personally I feel that the figures are a good bit off in Welfare, Robin at 25% is very low and Dami is possibly a bit high at 60%. What will be interesting will be where Ron and McCarthys transfers will go, I thought they would go to Robin but I was talking to Dami tonight and he seems confident he'll get a large amount of McCarthys transfers.

Education will be very interesting and I'm really looking forward to the count tomorrow, it's almost certainly going to go down to transfers, in my opinion Stitt will benefit a lot from Fennelly's no.2's and will probably be the deciding factor in the race, but it's still up for grabs between Stitt, Kitt and Reilly.

Lockstep · 09-03-2012 5:00am

carolmarx wrote: »

Shame to see how the campaign sunk even lower today. I personally overheard a man asking Evelyn Fennelly why she was still canvassing as a member of the Kitt campaign team had told him she had dropped out of the race... Pointless, dirty and shameful.

Probably an idiot canvasser who was relying on hearsay. I doubt Kitt himself would put something like that forward.
SHameful nonetheless.

paperpackages wrote: »

Majority of the canvassers seemed tired today, wasn't hassled as much except by Stitt and co. I see there was a child canvassing for him today around the concourse; he really knows the right techniques to attract voters!

Yeah, his brother was canvassing for him and his three wee nephews canvassed for a while!

Personally, I was burned out by this stage. Most canvassers seemed the same, Kitt and Adebari had much fewer canvassers than Monday whereas Reilly, Stitt and Allen had a lot more.

paperpackages wrote: »

It's a pity Kitt hadn't put in more of an effort with approaching people (from what I saw) and doing shout outs in lectures- he got my vote but quite a few remarked they hadn't heard of him.

Fully agree, his canvassers seemed shyer than others, although he had a lot of them. Myself and an Allen supporter seemed to be the only ones doing shoutouts in the Arts Millenium building. Stitt and Allen were doing shoutouts all throuh the day on the Concourse, apparently Kitt and O'Brien were doing them as well though I didn't personally see them.

paperpackages wrote: »

Of course, people not being informed before voting was evident today. "What was that yes or no thing about" must have been the quote of the day! Because of this I don't think results of the referendum will be in anyway an accurate representation of how the majority of students feel on the issue.

Yeah, I was walking up the stairs in the Aras na Mac Léinn and a student in the voting area asked me what was it about. Many voters didnt seem to get it.

Cathal O wrote: »

S:TV Galway have published an Exit poll, the results are as follows:

PRESIDENT
Paul Curley - 76%
William O'Brien - 16%
RON- 7%
Don't Know - 1%

EDUCATION
Conor Stitt - 38%
Rory Kitt - 32%
David Reilly - 23%
Evelyn Fennelly - 6%
Tatiana Bruvolyskya - 0%
RON - 1%

WELFARE
Dami Adebari - 60%
Robin Allen - 25%
Sarah McCarthy - 13%
RON - 2%

Keep in mind that only 150 people were asked so it's quite weighted. I doubt the discrepancy between Adebari and Allen will be that great. McCarthy will probably come last and I dunno how her transfers will go. Allen will have a strong societies vote, Adebari a clubs vote and McCarthy a FEE/activist vote. Dunno how McCarthy will transfer as both Dami and Robin have poor relations with FEE. I'd say a lot of McCarthy's votes will be non-transferable.

I'd be surprised if Reilly did so well as he seemed to make very little effort compared to other candidates although he might know a lot of people. I'd say it'll be very tight between Kitt and Stitt though. It'll probably go Stitt, Kitt, Reilly, Fennelly then Bruvolyskya. Bruvolyskya and Fennelly would probably mostly transfer to Stitt given they all come from activist backgrounds. Reilly's could go either way given that he has a clubs background as opposed to Kitt's Tuam/Gums/Dramsoc/Theatre and Performance vote and Stitt's activist/political/Galway city voting base.

Curley has it in the bag it seems. He seemed very stressed out earlier on but the pink shirts were literally all over campus.

carolmarx · 09-03-2012 12:47pm

Is anyone down at the count today? How's it looking?

leeroybrown · 09-03-2012 1:10pm

#NUIGSU12 on Twitter is probably your best source of information.

Ficheall · 09-03-2012 1:36pm

Referendum passed. 1826 yes, 758 no.

TheCosmicFrog · 09-03-2012 1:58pm

Ficheall wrote: »

Referendum passed. 1826 yes, 758 no.

The most hilarious part of that count was when the returning officer held up a big pile of papers and asked, "Who wants the YES pile?", followed by, "And the NO pile?" which was less than half the size.

Gee, I wonder which one passed? :rolleyes:

bildo · 09-03-2012 2:17pm

No Pasaran!

XD

That's one victory.

Ficheall · 09-03-2012 3:26pm

Stitt has won very narrowly.
75 votes in it after the third and final count according to Ken Curtin, whoever the hell he is.

Ficheall · 09-03-2012 4:04pm

Dami elected for Welfare on first count with 1811 votes.

Ficheall · 09-03-2012 4:46pm

Paul Curley elected...

joeKel73 · 09-03-2012 4:59pm

Full breakdown of results and transfers are up: http://www.su.nuigalway.ie/site/view/3710/

Education was a close one!

President - Paul Curley
Vice President / Education Officer - Conor Stitt
Vice President / Welfare Officer - Dami Adebari

Referendum on the 'No Platform Policy': Passed

Lockstep · 09-03-2012 6:49pm

Very tight race for Education, absolutely delighted that Stitt got in. Surprised at how few transfers Stitt got from Fennelly, with most of the votes being non transferable and Kitt and Stitt receiving roughly equal transfers.

Welfare was a surprise, thought Allen would poll higher than that. Didn't expect Adebari to get in that easily.

Presidency was pretty much as you'd expect. The amount of Ron votes was very notable though.

Thought FEE candidates would poll higher though given they did some solid campaigning . Altogether, they got less than 25% of the total valid vote. It'll be interesting to see what happens with Stitt, they had a row with him, ran someone against him and he got poor transfers from Fennelly so it'll be amusing if they try and get him back on board now he's in office.

jumpguy · 09-03-2012 7:57pm

What do people think of the "no platform" referendum passing?

Foreverdelayed · 09-03-2012 8:02pm

Did Joe Loughnane kick any tables over this year?

dreamer8700 · 09-03-2012 10:20pm

What do people think of the "no platform" referendum passing?

Graphic posters from the YES side probably won the day - 'Keep NUIG clean' kind of stuff. Also indicative of general apathy and lack of knowledge on the part of voters...

Here's to Free Speech - whatever the thought police wannabes say.

Ficheall · 09-03-2012 10:45pm

dreamer8700 wrote: »

indicative of [...] lack of knowledge on the part of voters...

dreamer8700 wrote: »

Here's to Free Speech - whatever the thought police wannabes say.

Hmmmmmmmm.........

Ruire · 10-03-2012 1:27am

Foreverdelayed wrote: »

Did Joe Loughnane kick any tables over this year?

No, but he came over and gave out to us for tweeting about the possibility of it.

BhoscaCapall · 10-03-2012 2:13am

How did this chap get on, does anyone know?

Reillyman · 10-03-2012 5:17am

Must say on a personal note I'm delighted for Paul Curley and all his team. I'd also like to say a big thanks to Will and all his team for a great campaign, as stressfull and difficult as it was I had a great time and I hope ye enjoyed it too. At the end of the day nearly 1,000 first preference votes is something to be very proud of.

In education I must admit, after the results of the first count I was nearly sure Stitt would get in, but then after Fennellys transfers to Stitt failed to materialise my money was on Kitt, as I thought he would benefit most from Reillys transfers. However Reillys transfers to Kitt were only around 40 more than Stitts so it wasn't enough. Don't quote me on figures btw.

In Welfare I must say I was completely surprised. When the S:TV exit Poll was conducted I said no way was Robin Allen on only 25%, I was full sure that was way below his actual polling figure, and that Dami at 60% was overestimated. I think the biggest shock of the day, for me anyway, and for most, was that McCarthy beat Robin. Not taking anything away from Sarah, she ran a great campaign in fairness, but I honestly thought Robin would do much better than the first preference he got.

All in all I think the three officers thouroughly deserve their elected positions. Both Curley and Stitt both ran last year and missed out narrowly. Although I'd count Robin as a good friend and I thought he would do very well as welfare officer, I also think Dami will be very good in the role and wish him the very best, he had his mind set on the position for a long time and fair play to him for achieving that goal.

Reillyman · 10-03-2012 5:23am

Ficheall wrote: »

Stitt has won very narrowly.
75 votes in it after the third and final count according to Ken Curtin, whoever the hell he is.

He was the Returning Officer.

Reillyman · 10-03-2012 5:48am

Ficheall · 10-03-2012 12:10pm

Reillyman wrote: »

He was the Returning Officer.

Aye, cheers - I knew that much but nothing else. Generally I'd expect to have heard of the returning officer. I must be out of the loop

Manco · 10-03-2012 2:16pm

Didn't find Allen's performance that surprising. He's very well known among societies, but that's a very self-contained clique in the college anyway.

Glad to see Stitt get education officer, though it'll be funny to see him organise protests with GMIT after the snobbery on NUIG memes :pac:

Lockstep · 10-03-2012 2:45pm

Manco wrote: »

Didn't find Allen's performance that surprising. He's very well known among societies, but that's a very self-contained clique in the college anyway.

I would strongly disagree here, the societies vote is huge and has often been a clincher in elections. It's far rarer to find a strong election candidate who hasn't been heavily involved with societies than the other way round (Grant and Healy are exceptions but both had strong clubs support)

IheartGOW · 12-03-2012 11:06am

Any see anything about part time elections haven't been in college yet so don't know myself!!

Robmeister2011 · 12-03-2012 12:17pm

There's a few around, Donoghue, Preston, Clancy and Kelly seem to be first out of the paddocks, and Seoighe (for Oifigeach na Gaeilge) has been around with some fancy flyers.

Part time elections rock!

Lockstep · 12-03-2012 1:10pm

Donoghue has probably the best poster campaign out, although McCallion isn't far behind. Both have A3 full colour/glossy posters which I havn't seen before for a part time position.
Kelly has more traditional part-time posters.

Seoighe, Clancy and Preston have all been visible as well.

Ruire · 12-03-2012 8:41pm

Lockstep wrote: »

Clancy

He'll tickle your fancy, so he says.

MissMoppet · 13-03-2012 10:40am

Part Time Nominations

Oifigeach na Gaeilge

Nestor, Mark
Seoighe, Feidhlim

Equality Officer

Doherty, Frank
Donoghue, Kevin
Kelly, Mark
Kobory, Eszter Heather
McCallion, Claire

Mature Students Officer

Preston, Barbara
Wettmann, Denis

Postgraduate Officer

Grant, Brian

Societies' Chairperson

O'Donnell, Paul

Club's Captain

Craig, Emmett
Grant, Liam

Convenors for Arts,Social Sciences & Celtic Studies

Clancy, Patrick
Cox, Megan
Mac Aoidh, Senan

Convenor of Science

Kelly, Phelim

Convenor of Engineering and Informatics

Callery, Alan
Ó Fátharta, Feithín

Convenor of Business and Public Policy & Law

Nolan, Conor

Robmeister2011 · 13-03-2012 11:12am

Nobody reaaaalllllyyyy putting in effort... I like it though. I really like it.

SU elections (Full time and part time) **MOD NOTE** POST #1 and #26

Comments

SU elections (Full time and part time) MOD NOTE POST #1 and #26