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

Squeeonline

Part time elections: and not a single fsck was given.

Shame, because the PT'ers do great work some years.

joeKel73

Ah I wouldn't say that. There was a good buzz on the concourse getting people in to vote. Seemed quiet in there though.

Squeeonline

J o e wrote: »

Ah I wouldn't say that. There was a good buzz on the concourse getting people in to vote. Seemed quiet in there though.

I'm not around Galway any more these days, but yeah, maybe it's only here that's dead.

joeKel73

Results coming in here: http://www.su.nuigalway.ie/site/view/3727

Societies' Chairperson Count 1
O'Donnell, Paul 15
RON 15 RON wins on coin toss
:eek: - You can't get closer than that!!

Clubs' Captain - Emmett Craig elected

Postgrad Officer - Brian Grant elected

Convenor for Business and Public Policy & Law - Conor Nolan elected

Convenor for Science - Phelim Kelly elected

Convenor for Engineering and Informatics - Alan Callery elected

Convenors for Arts,Social Sciences & Celtic Studies - Patrick Clancy elected
(VERY Close race between three!!)

None of the votes open to all students have a first count in yet...

joeKel73

Final results;

Oifigeach na Gaeilge - Feidhlim Seoighe

Equality Officer - Claire McCallion

Mature Students Officer - Barbara Preston

Postgraduate Officer - Brian Grant

Societies' Chairperson - Nominations re-opened

Club's Captain - Emmett Craig

Convenors for Arts,Social Sciences & Celtic Studies - Patrick Clancy

Convenor for Science - Phelim Kelly

Convenor for Engineering and Informatics - Alan Callery

Convenor for Business and Public Policy & Law - Conor Nolan

Lockstep

Socs Chair, Arts Convenor and Equality were all extremely tight.
Socs Chair ended up with the one candidate and RON getting equal votes so it came down to a coin toss.

Lockstep

Also, it'll be interesting to see how the SU works without any FEE members, given how active they were on the SU this year.

Ruire

Lockstep wrote: »

Also, it'll be interesting to see how the SU works without any FEE members, given how active they were on the SU this year.

Like it did every other year?

Hegemonic Overlord

First of all Lockstep, McCarthy does not want free MAPs, she clearly stated when asked she believed it should be free for emergencies. This is would be assessed properly. Also she was well aware that there was a lot of casework involved in the welfare role. The workings out of the money behind it were also looked into after detailed assessments of UMT meeting documents, and substantial first-hand information on the availability of finances from the SU and the HSE. She did not want it free for all rather it being heavily subsidised by the University for emergency situations, which again would be assessed on an individual case-by-case basis.
On the free tea and coffee, of course if someone wants to split hairs, they would interpret that as meaning a free cup of tea for every single student. No. What was meant was that tea and coffee making facilities should be made available at exams free of charge.
Whenever I sat exams off campus, there were always buses to the centres. I would rather the money from our reg fee go here rather than on an extension to the bank.
Lockstep, I fail to see how McCarthy is not approachable and sympathetic?
Fail to see why Fennelly had to mention she was in Lifesoc when running for Education Officer.
Walking around canvassers in a circle is not being assaulted. Merely marking out the much-wanted territory in front of the Kirwan! 2nd incident had nothing to do with any campaign.
IheartGOW, pray tell how McCarthy is “clueless”???
Why can’t a pro-lifer running for education be running-mates with a pro-choicer for welfare??? Shows diversity of thought in my opinion.
Cathal O: From speaking to McCarthy you were making out from the outset that she wanted to give a free cup of tea to every student. That is rubbish and putting words in her mouth. She clearly stated when asked a number of times that free facilities should be made available, like they are throughout the year for numerous event across campus.
Lockstep: You were wrong about McCarthy coming last, that poll was well off the mark.
Lockstep: FEE were delighted with 1000 people who voted for their Presidential candidate, 750 for their welfare candidate and 500 for their education candidate. As for Stitt, glad he got in and regardless of his relationship with FEE, he believes in free education for everyone.

Ficheall

Hegemonic Overlord wrote: »

she clearly stated when asked she believed it should be free for emergencies.

as opposed to...?

i gcomparáid le..?

Lockstep

Hegemonic Overlord wrote: »

First of all Lockstep, McCarthy does not want free MAPs, she clearly stated when asked she believed it should be free for emergencies.

As opposed to people who seek the MAP in non-emergency situations?

Hegemonic Overlord wrote: »

This is would be assessed properly.

How? Surely if someone needs the MAP then time is of the essence, not being assessed. What would the assessment involve anyway?

Hegemonic Overlord wrote: »

Also she was well aware that there was a lot of casework involved in the welfare role. The workings out of the money behind it were also looked into after detailed assessments of UMT meeting documents, and substantial first-hand information on the availability of finances from the SU and the HSE.

Fair enough, none of the candidates this year seemed to note how important casework is and instead posted up barrages of stuff they'd do, with McCarthy being no exception.

Hegemonic Overlord wrote: »

She did not want it free for all rather it being heavily subsidised by the University for emergency situations, which again would be assessed on an individual case-by-case basis.[

Again, do you really think this practical? Making it free only when someone has been assessed in a crisis?

Hegemonic Overlord wrote: »

Lockstep, I fail to see how McCarthy is not approachable and sympathetic?

Going by your previous posts content and your posting style, I'm guessing you're her boyfriend. If so, we've discussed this issue before.
At any rate, shouting into a megaphone, railing against political parties and occupying buildings isn't something a welfare candidate should be doing. It's what made Grant and Conway such excellent officers: they're calm, reserved and approachable with every student knowing they can approach them. Fair enough if you think McCarthy is, I'd disagree for the reasons I've said to you before.

Hegemonic Overlord wrote: »

Lockstep: You were wrong about McCarthy coming last, that poll was well off the mark.

Well yes, it was speculation on my behalf. If she had 60 or so votes less, she would have come last so I'm hardly horribly out of kilter with my predictions.
I was also wrong in the transfers between Fennelly and Stitt, I thought she'd transfer better to someone who believes in Free Education but roughly equal amounts went to Kitt and Stitt.

Hegemonic Overlord wrote: »

Lockstep: FEE were delighted with 1000 people who voted for their Presidential candidate, 750 for their welfare candidate and 500 for their education candidate.

Meh, I don't see FEE's results as being anything special. Despite a well-run, well-financed, slick, well-postered and canvassing-heavy campaign (including controversial issues such as their banners and getting faculties to send out emails to students supporting FEE candidates), FEE lost all 3 positions. The discrepancies between the three candidates shows that it was hardly a FEE vote.
Fennelly got 15% of the vote, McCarthy 22% and O'Brien got less than a third in a two-person race (although given the Curley machine, he did better than I expected).
FEE also lost all the part time elections they contested, including one candidate who was RONned.

Fair enough if FEE are happy with these results, I thought they'd have their sights set higher than that.

Ruire wrote: »

Like it did every other year?

No, seeing as FEE has never been this active before and were extremely active on the SU.

Ruire

Lockstep wrote: »

No, seeing as FEE has never been this active before and were extremely active on the SU.

Being censured by that same SU certainly counts, I s'pose.

bildo

Lockstep wrote: »

Fair enough if FEE are happy with these results, I thought they'd have their sights set higher than that.

We actually couldn;t care less about not being on SUs. We ran for these position because we think that SUs across th country are totally failling at campaigning for students' welfare and want to do something about it.
SU should be full of people who actually give a more of a **** about the students they are supposed to be representing more than their CVs at the end of the term.
If campus balls and impractical, impossible promises are more important to students in NUIG then so be it, students get (or won;t as the case may be) what they vote for.
We won't stop what we do and we have our eyes on much grander prizes that cushty SU Officer positions.

Free Education for Everyone
Nothing less

Forward the revolution

bildo

Ruire wrote: »

Being censured by that same SU certainly counts, I s'pose.

lol, please read the SIN article on this, I am bored of explaining why it's important to speak out when democratic process is being deliberately obstructed by elected representatives.

Motion of censure my arse. If my motions to class reps are being altered without my knowledge, and outside of the constitutionsal framework then yes, I will speak out and I will interrupt whoever is responsible.

I said at the time and I stand by the statement that that motion of censure was nothing more than a deliberate attempt to further enforce divides in the SU Exec and to undermine my very valid claim that the democratic structures in place in this union are terrible organised and basically unworkable. I say this as someone who has put more motions to class reps this year than anyone (except possible the president).

Lockstep

bildo wrote: »

We actually couldn;t care less about not being on SUs. We ran for these position because we think that SUs across th country are totally failling at campaigning for students' welfare and want to do something about it
SU should be full of people who actually give a more of a **** about the students they are supposed to be representing more than their CVs at the end of the term.
If campus balls and impractical, impossible promises are more important to students in NUIG then so be it, students get (or won;t as the case may be) what they vote for.
We won't stop what we do and we have our eyes on much grander prizes that cushty SU Officer positions.

Free Education for Everyone
Nothing less

Forward the revolution

Right, so you do care about being on SUs. Obviously you do as you have run twice for NUIG's SU, spending a lot of time and money in the process for your presidential run.
Not having a go at you by the way, I see nothing wrong with running for the positions.

Ficheall

bildo wrote: »

we have our eyes on much grander prizes that cushty SU Officer positions.

You mean "the most difficult job in the West of Ireland" (sic.)?

Ciallaíonn tú "an post is deacra in Iarthar na hÉireann" (sic.)?

Ruire

Ficheall wrote: »

You mean "the most difficult job in the West of Ireland" (sic.)?

The FEE cycle of logic:

'Democracy is only worthwhile when we win'

See the following example.

bildo wrote: »

I said at the time and I stand by the statement that that motion of censure was nothing more than a deliberate attempt to further enforce divides in the SU Exec and to undermine my very valid claim that the democratic structures in place in this union are terrible organised and basically unworkable. I say this as someone who has put more motions to class reps this year than anyone (except possible the president).

Canvasser

Could I just see<Snip> Do not post as a representative of a particular group unless you have been granted permission to do so councillors and members in Galway West a big thank you to all who could part in elections. It's great to see young people getting involved with politics. A big congratulations to Dami. He is a mature young man with a big future in politics. Hard luck to Robin Allen who also did very well. Also Congratulations to Curly and stitt. It's good that students are choosing responsible candidates who are <snip> unfounded remarks removed and have a realistic view on how education should be funded. It bodes well for the future and says Ireland Inc is open for business. <Snip>Unfounded remarks again

joeKel73

Canvasser wrote: »

shows that young people still see a bright future for Fianna Fáil in this country.

Reillyman

Hahaha brilliant, sure Stitt is Sinn Fein and neither Dami nor Curley are affiliated to any party, I can also tell you for a fact that no councillors were involved in the elections!

Just accept that the majority of the student body don't endorse and won't vote for far-left groups and policies.

Yenoor10

Reillyman wrote: »

Just accept that the majority of the student body don't endorse and won't vote for far-left groups and policies.

Come off it. Student elections are nothing more than a popularity contest.

TheCosmicFrog

Yenoor10 wrote: »

Reillyman wrote: »

Just accept that the majority of the student body don't endorse and won't vote for far-left groups and policies.

Come off it. Student elections are nothing more than a popularity contest.

Not necessarily. I spoke to a lot of different people about the elections (mostly those who wouldn't stay up-to-date with the latest campus goings-on) who'd frequently say things like, "And I obviously didn't give any votes to those FEE guys". Perceptions of FEE are relatively low from anyone I've spoken to.

Reillyman

TheCosmicFrog wrote: »

Not necessarily. I spoke to a lot of different people about the elections (mostly those who wouldn't stay up-to-date with the latest campus goings-on) who'd frequently say things like, "And I obviously didn't give any votes to those FEE guys". Perceptions of FEE are relatively low from anyone I've spoken to.

Yeah this was exactly what I meant, it was something I encountered an awful lot canvassing over the week. But hey there's nothing new with defeated parties dismissing the electorate or election process as nonsense, only when they're preferred candidate doesn't get in mind.

bildo

Reillyman wrote: »

Just accept that the majority of the student body don't endorse and won't vote for far-left groups and policies.

And I accept that the student body doesn't vote for any significantly political or policy related reasons. This is hardly a revelatin however.

Lockstep

I've seen candidates elected who had no policies (literally none except boilterplate stuff) but who still did very well as they know a lot of people or have a good personality for canvassing.

Likewise, some of the best candidates I've ever seen languished at the bottom of the polls.
Anecdotal evidence though but I see where Bildo is coming from.

Reillyman

bildo wrote: »

And I accept that the student body doesn't vote for any significantly political or policy related reasons. This is hardly a revelatin however.

As true as that may or may not be, if a FEE candidate had been elected I'm sure ye're members would be saying that it's a clear endorsement of FEE's work and policies, whereas when you don't get in ye dismiss the whole thing by saying students vote based on popularity, so make up ye're mind.

However I don't think the majority of students vote based on popularity, with the full-time elections I believe many candidates benefitted from running against FEE candidates as there was a clear cut choice between idealism and realism and people voted for which they prefer.

bildo

Ye?

I am Will O'Brien, no one else. FEE isn't an amorphous organis you know.

Personally I think that just short of 1000 first preferences for an open anarchist who occupied a bank the week before the election is somewhat of an endorsement by a sizable portion of the student body for certain policies and attitudes that are common among FEE. Next year's Exec would do well to take heed that there is a large portion of the students who clearly support this sort of action.

And I didn;t say that students vote based on popularity, I just said it was predominantly not for reasons pertaining to policy or politics. You're putting words in my mouth.

And it is a shame that idealism is not as rampant among youg people as it should be, it bodes badly for the future of this country when people feel they are powerless to affect change.
Without idealism, how do we ever expect to create a better world?

bildo

*

I'm sorry, you just described Curley's campaign as realistic? Have you read his manifesto? My biggest regret about the election was not being able to publically question him about some of the more outlandish and outright insane parts of it such as somehow convincing employers to support the student protests, scrapping all the campaign weeks including mental health week while at the same time focussing on "suicide awareness", campaigning for UCC SU to vote in favour of the USI affiliation when the referendum had already been held at that point etc, at hustings which he ducked out of. Probably a good career move I must say.

Highly realistic...

Reillyman

Will, my point is that we have this;

bildo wrote: »

Personally I think that just short of 1000 first preferences for an open anarchist who occupied a bank the week before the election is somewhat of an endorsement by a sizable portion of the student body for certain policies and attitudes that are common among FEE.

and then this;

bildo wrote: »

And I didn;t say that students vote based on popularity, I just said it was predominantly not for reasons pertaining to policy or politics. You're putting words in my mouth.

What I'm saying is that when it suits, the election is based on endorsement of policies, but when it doesn't suit, it's not based on polices. See what I mean? Not taking anything away from your 1000 votes btw, it is something to be proud of.

Funkie

Over 1,000 votes is a feat, but I think many were a case of vote for anyone but Curley... I know mine was...