First Year Rep nominations re-opened

banquo

Closing date is Friday 12th November

First years can download a nomination form here:

Details are at nuimsu.com -> Maynooth SU (dropdown list) -> First Year Rep.

squishykins

Wish I was brave enough to do something like that =/

Seren_

amyputz wrote: »

Wish I was brave enough to do something like that =/

Probably reading far too much into your post Amy, but if you want to run for First Year Rep you should go for it! Don't let being scared of something hold you back from doing it You come across as a really nice person on this, so I'm sure you'd do well ^_^

I'm turning into my therapist :S

squishykins

Your Text Here wrote: »

Probably reading far too much into your post Amy, but if you want to run for First Year Rep you should go for it! Don't let being scared of something hold you back from doing it You come across as a really nice person on this, so I'm sure you'd do well ^_^

I'm turning into my therapist :S

You sound like my therapist too, maybe we have the same one! *High therapist five* XDDD

And lol, I'd love to be one but you need to be outgoing and assertive to get that sort of thing, just look at the three who went for it last time! I was actually going to go for class rep in my german class, but some dude somehow announced himself to be it before I knew what was even going on :P It's kinda sad, he's incredibly annoying and people tend not to talk to him much...He said nobody went against him, if I had known how to I would have!

I_Am_The_Walrus

Why is it reopened? I though Ruaidhri won?

jubella

I_Am_The_Walrus wrote: »

Why is it reopened? I though Ruaidhri won?

That's what I was thinking. I was very confused when I got the email!

MoyVilla9

Heard that Ruaidhri broke the rules.

Does this mean more free stuff on voting day? lol

banquo

Computer error, I can
Post the exact details if people like later or tomorrow, basically when I'm not on my phone!

Loads of people weren't listed as eligible voters, even though they were. So they weren't allowed to vote because the system didn't show them, which is hardly fair, so the election is declared invalid and has to be run again.

Anyone can run, not just the people who ran last time.

Kiwi_knock

It was Seminarians (trainee priests) from St Pats who could no vote. It was the right thing to hold the election again.

squishykins

MoyVilla9 wrote: »

Heard that Ruaidhri broke the rules.

I like how people started jumping to that conclusion, Ruaidhri ya mad yoke :P In fairness though that's what I thought too when I got the e-mail :P

georgie_porgy

Kiwi_knock wrote: »

It was Seminarians (trainee priests) from St Pats who could no vote. It was the right thing to hold the election again.

How many of them are there? Were they asked would they mind not putting all of First Year to the inconvenience of another round of electioneering and voting? At this rate half the year will be gone without the post being filled. Unless they were omitted by intent an alternative solution should have been found.

Kiwi_knock

georgie_porgy wrote: »

How many of them are there? Were they asked would they mind not putting all of First Year to the inconvenience of another round of electioneering and voting? At this rate half the year will be gone without the post being filled. Unless they were omitted by intent an alternative solution should have been found.

Well it is not their fault that they were not allowed vote, plus Ruaidhri only won by 3 votes so their votes definitely could make a difference.

georgie_porgy

Presumably the election will be re-run with the same candidates. Why would it be re-opened to new candidates?

squishykins

georgie_porgy wrote: »

Presumably the election will be re-run with the same candidates. Why would it be re-opened to new candidates?

Because a lot of people, including myself, didn't even know the elections were taking place. I don't think I spoke to one person in any of my classes who got to vote or run for it

georgie_porgy

amyputz wrote: »

Because a lot of people, including myself, didn't even know the elections were taking place. I don't think I spoke to one person in any of my classes who got to vote or run for it

Was this because they don't read their email or because they ignored all posters etc? If they didn't get to vote because they were not on the electoral register then the problem is greater than just the handful of seminarians. If they didn't vote or run out of apathy then that's hardly grounds for re-opening the whole process.

cython

georgie_porgy wrote: »

Presumably the election will be re-run with the same candidates. Why would it be re-opened to new candidates?

Because of the election process set down in the SU constitution. The nominations are part of the election itself, therefore if the election is declared invalid, all of it is counted as such, and so all parts/stages of it must be re-run.

banquo

Exactly. Can't re-run just part of an election.

funky penguin

Feel sorry for Ruaidhri if he's running again. Sorting out a campaign is hard enough without having to do it twice in as many months.

georgie_porgy

banquo wrote: »

Exactly. Can't re-run just part of an election.

There's nothing 'exactly' about it. If an elected candidate is disqualified, as has occurred following the UK General Election then nominations are re-opened and a by-election is conducted. The norm in most democratic processes, where the election was screwed up by persons or things beyond the candidates, would be for only the vote to be repeated - and then only as a last resort.

Thwip!

back in my day (last year) this kind of thing was unheard of.....damn brian cowen :rolleyes:

georgie_porgy

jpcarlow wrote: »

back in my day (last year) this kind of thing was unheard of.....damn brian cowen :rolleyes:

Yes Lisbon 1 , Lisbon 2 and as many as necessary to get the result. Now First Yr 1, First Yr 2 etc . It is all down to Brian Cowen.
When it comes to constitutional rules for elections the SU must have employed consultants from Lagos.

J.D.R

georgie_porgy wrote: »

Yes Lisbon 1 , Lisbon 2 and as many as necessary to get the result. Now First Yr 1, First Yr 2 etc . It is all down to Brian Cowen.
When it comes to constitutional rules for elections the SU must have employed consultants from Lagos.

More like the first one isn't done properly, so they have a second one. Simple.

LeixlipRed

It's just a mistake, think people need to relax a tad. These disenfranchised theology students are bound to vote for whoever says they're bigger than Jesus anyway, that's my advice to candidates :cool:

squishykins

georgie_porgy wrote: »

Was this because they don't read their email or because they ignored all posters etc? If they didn't get to vote because they were not on the electoral register then the problem is greater than just the handful of seminarians. If they didn't vote or run out of apathy then that's hardly grounds for re-opening the whole process.

Hey come on we were in the place 2 weeks or something at the time, cut us some slack!

georgie_porgy

amyputz wrote: »

Hey come on we were in the place 2 weeks or something at the time, cut us some slack!

Ok so naivety explains why some First Years may not have voted and now as a result of the cock-up in the conduct of the voting the voting needs to be re-run.
But this does not explain why the SU's interpretation of how to remedy the error in the conduct of the vote is to re-run the whole process. This is patently unfair and runs counter to accepted international practice in democracies. Any student of the subject would direct you to the seminal work by Huefner 'Remedying Election Wrongs' published in the Harvard Journal on Legislation; see
http://www.electionlawissues.org/huefner.pdf
In this article thorough reviews and analyses of causes and redresses to problems in democratic elections are presented. The voiding of the electoral process and the re-opening of the process from nominations through to voting can only be interpreted as being due to some substantial fraudulent or corrupt action by candidates, their agents or the election officers. Since this does not appear to have happened and as it seems a simple error occurred so some seminarians were unable to vote, it is grossly disproportionate to open the nomination process again and could be challenged as impugning the reputation of the original candidates. A simple re-run of the ballot is all that is required.
If you are interested in this subject see also how MIT handled a student election
http://tech.mit.edu/V118/N14/aua.14n.html

cython

georgie_porgy wrote: »

Ok so naivety explains why some First Years may not have voted and now as a result of the cock-up in the conduct of the voting the voting needs to be re-run.
But this does not explain why the SU's interpretation of how to remedy the error in the conduct of the vote is to re-run the whole process. This is patently unfair and runs counter to accepted international practice in democracies. Any student of the subject would direct you to the seminal work by Huefner 'Remedying Election Wrongs' published in the Harvard Journal on Legislation; see
http://www.electionlawissues.org/huefner.pdf
In this article thorough reviews and analyses of causes and redresses to problems in democratic elections are presented. The voiding of the electoral process and the re-opening of the process from nominations through to voting can only be interpreted as being due to some substantial fraudulent or corrupt action by candidates, their agents or the election officers. Since this does not appear to have happened and as it seems a simple error occurred so some seminarians were unable to vote, it is grossly disproportionate to open the nomination process again and could be challenged as impugning the reputation of the original candidates. A simple re-run of the ballot is all that is required.
If you are interested in this subject see also how MIT handled a student election
http://tech.mit.edu/V118/N14/aua.14n.html

1. If you have that much of a problem with this, I would suggest you take it to the Guardianship of the Constitution. This is what they are there for. Ian Russell would probably be able to tell you how to go about that.
2. I haven't read that "seminal work", and simply don't have the time to waste on it now, but from a quick look at the first few pages' references, it would seem to apply to the USA, which would be backed up by it being in the Harvard Journal. Also, the American flag in the banner on the site hosting that document seems to suggest they have a narrow focus too. Simply put, we're not in America, so this can only have a certain amount of relevance
3. Similar to above, we're in NUIM, not MIT. The simple fact of differing constitutions for the organisations, never mind any other differences between the two, mean that what is good for the goose, is not necessarily good for the gander in this instance.

Banquo, is there any chance you can put up a copy of the SU constitution on the website actually, please? I can't seem to find it on the new one, and I think georgie_porgy should read it before making any more assertions of what precedents in completely different places apply here.

banquo

Yes! I put one up before but it turned out to the the constitution for Letterkenny IT (not sure why it was on my computer, it was on the desktop called constitution.pdf, meh)

I'll put it up to tonight (I can't FTP from my office so I have to do this stuff from home, and the aul pc is broken so it's a bit of a mess), tomorrow at the latest.

Seren_

If anyone wants a read of the constitution before it's put up on the website, there's a copy of it attached to the email sent out about the Returning Officer vacancy

irish_goat

Constitution is attached.

MaynoothSU

Done.

It's under Maynooth SU

(God bless internet cafes)

K4t

I have a friend who was counting votes for the last election who says he and the rest were paid €17 per hour for the role. Please someone tell me he's lying...:)

banquo

Dunno myself what the rate of pay is, doubt it's that high tbh.

Nominations now closed!

funky penguin

Who's up for it?

banquo

I know who left in nomination forms but don't know if the all the signatures have been checked yet. You'll know when I do

Duddy

*bump*

This is tomorrow, first year folks:)

9.30 - 6pm in the Arts Block!

Seren_

How did it go? Much of a turnout? I know of at least one first year that voted, so it wasn't 0 anyway :pac:

MaynoothSU

Ruaidhri Boland is deemed elected First Year Rep.

Will have total poll shortly.

MaynoothSU

261 valid votes
6 spoiled
Quota: 132

Boland: 132
Fleming: 109
Dean: 18
Ron: 2

I_Am_The_Walrus

Who's Ron?

Seren_

I_Am_The_Walrus wrote: »

Who's Ron?

Re Open Nominations.

A great guy

squishykins

Haha ron :P Awww damn I didn't get who I voted for :P I can't believe no girls went for it!

irish_goat

amyputz wrote: »

Haha ron :P Awww damn I didn't get who I voted for :P I can't believe no girls went for it!

They were all too busy making sandwiches, afaik.

Ms. Koi

irish_goat wrote: »

They were all too busy making sandwiches, afaik.

*slaps with sandwich*

squishykins

irish_goat wrote: »

They were all too busy making sandwiches, afaik.

Well where the hell was my sammich??

circa1990

K4t wrote: »

I have a friend who was counting votes for the last election who says he and the rest were paid €17 per hour for the role. Please someone tell me he's lying...:)[/QUOTE

he is lying... SU only pays election staff minimum wage and then time and a half after midnight... so he'd've gotten €8.65/ hour