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

MissMoppet

Cathal O wrote: »

This isnt a thread on the NUIG chaplaincy.

Nowhere did i say it was. I was merely pointing out that the service is already being offered. :rolleyes:

Cathal O

MissMoppet wrote: »

Cathal O wrote: »

This isnt a thread on the NUIG chaplaincy.

Nowhere did i say it was. I was merely pointing out that the service is already being offered. :rolleyes:

But surely even you will admit that it is not being taken up by the amount of students that would take this up on exam mornings. She is promising a cup to thousands per day of exams in each exam centre probably. While I accept your point...it is a completely different scale. My basic point still stands that it would cost a ridiculous amount of money that we don't have and wouldn't happen even of she does get office. Blatent deception that reeks of a policy not being thought through

Lockstep

Much stronger presence today from Stitt and Allen, Adebari and Kitt's campaign is a lot more lowkey than Monday.

Curley and O'Brien still very visible as well.

Nailz

Made my online vote there... Not going to disclose my votes as regards SU personnel, but as regards the referendum on the ‘No Platform’ policy, I voted not, ridiculous policy. 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...

Ficheall

Nailz wrote: »

I voted not, ridiculous policy.

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".

Ruire

bildo wrote: »

Very disappointed at hustings last night. I think it was very bad form of the candidates who didn;t bother their arses turning up, it shows a lack of accountability and willingless to engage with the student body.
I also thought that there was a very clear agenda by the vast majority of the people who attended and the whole thing appeared as a bit of a poor attempt at FEE lynch mob.
There was very little engagement and questions that deal with character and policy, especially in the "Presidential debate" which consisted of myself debating with a peice of paper.

Very uncool in my opinion. I was very well prepared for a real engaging debate and was looking forward to comparing policies and manifestos but what it turned into was a glorified lecture shoutout to my campaign team and running mates, some of the SU exec and a large body of my opposition.

As a member of FEE said to me on Facebook over the issue of campaigning via emails from university departments -

Is you're comment about being **** to other candidates is related to this, if so I'm sure if they're organised and smart enough to do the same thing if they think it's effective.

It's not their fault they decided to win votes instead of stand up and 'debate' (read, listen to personal attacks and get told 'you're wrong, no you're wrong - it's muh rights') with people who've already made their minds up.

yer man!

Logged onto su website there to vote and apparently i'm not registered, never knew I had to register in advance..... stupid system. Everyone shouls be made vote online anyway.

Ficheall

yer man! wrote: »

Logged onto su website there to vote and apparently i'm not registered, never knew I had to register in advance..... stupid system. Everyone shouls be made vote online anyway.

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

bildo

Cathal O wrote: »

Now lets say, at a minimum, a cup of coffee/tea, from a wholesaler costs 40 cent, this is pureely minimalism including electricity costs, milk, sugar, cups etc.
.40 x 90000 = 36.000

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

Lockstep

Based on today, my predictions are:

Curley will reach the quota. O'Brien campaigned well but Curley had a machine out.

Stitt will narrowly beat Kitt in 1st preferences, transfers will be up in the air making this a tight race. Kitt had a strong canvassing team out but some seemed shy about approaching people. Stitt seemed to concentrate far more on shout-outs than Kitt.

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

Ficheall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With enemies like FEE, who needs friends?