ULSU Elections 2013 (Voting Thursday March 14) #VoteUL

wnolan1992

ULFM are interviewing all candidates between now and 1pm if anyone's interested. www.ulfm.ie

Stephen_Byrne

I hope this link works. Our TST Exit Poll is currently on facebook, you'll be able to see the results after you vote.

https://apps.facebook.com/my-polls/isagm

Concy B

Will that continue updating the results by refreshing the page does anyone know?

Yes it does I'm just after realising

djnr8

Be interesting to see how accurate the polls will be

Best of luck to all candidates anyway

Jester252

Adam wants 2.1 for everyone

KellingtonDawg

Stephen_Byrne wrote: »

I hope this link works. Our TST Exit Poll is currently on facebook, you'll be able to see the results after you vote.

https://apps.facebook.com/my-polls/isagm

Fair play, will be interesting to see how accurate it is. I believe the poll TST last year was fairly spot on?

Jester252

Where are the result being released seen as that band is going on tonight?

djnr8

Jester252 wrote: »

Where are the result being released seen as that band is going on tonight?

That band?

for the love of god do people not know anything about music?


It'll be announced in the stables the same as always

Jester252

djnr8 wrote: »

That band?

for the love of god do people not know anything about music?


It'll be announced in the stables the same as always

What? That what they are? Do you have the time the results are expected.

Try not be a arse this time.

wnolan1992

Jester252 wrote: »

Do you have the time the results are expected.

8:45pm is the official time, but probably more around the 9pm mark if last year is anything to go by.

Think I'll stay in my nice warm house this year and get the results from TST or AF. Much handier. :P


And the TST exit poll suggests it's going to be Porter and Ni Dhonnchu (who both have massive leads atm), and a close race between Paddy and McCoy (McCoy currently has a huge lead, but Paddy is gaining every time I check).

Obviously, TST's poll is only a tiny sample of the votes, so may not be in any way representative.

djnr8

As wnolan said 8.45, but probably later

surely the name 2manyDJs gives away that they are not a band?

AnFecker

For anyone wondering what happened at last night's hustings.




http://anf ucked.blogspot.ie/2013/03/the-ulsu-sabbatical-elections-hosted-by.html

djnr8

Also, for those interested Derek Daly made a nice point on his facebook there earlier and gave me permission to post it here

"I generally don't make a habit of publicly endorsing people in constituencies where I no longer have a vote, but over the past 6-8 months, multiple people have gone out of their way to tell me what a great job they feel Cathal Ronan is doing. As a lot if this work is private and unseen, and having been fortunate enough to have carried out this role myself, anyone who gets praise from the quarters I have heard it from is a wholly worthy candidate."

freyners

Right voted for the current sabbats to be retained.

Rockett has a good track record and his extension to the library hours helped me enormously so it was an easy vote to cast

Ronan. Friend fo mine had to go to him over a personal issue, came out singing his praises. His track record is also impressive. Was very close between him and Catriona.

Moursy. Again solid track record, not a lot between any of the candidates and I think any one of them will do a good job but the reduction of the med centre swung it for him (and all of the current sabbats actually)

Best of luck to all the candidates, all seem solid and earnest. Also I really regret that the I voted stamp is gone, would be so helpful around the place now

Daniel S

freyners wrote: »

Best of luck to all the candidates, all seem solid and earnest. Also I really regret that the I voted stamp is gone, would be so helpful around the place now

+1 on that.

sceptre

supackofidiots wrote: »

spectre have you got your knitting needles and kit this year at the hustings?

I did. Far more portable than a cello and infinitely more useful in the event of a zombie attack. Perched towards the back of the room, I was far more interested in the white smoke coming from the sistine chapel though. Oh, yeah, and by the hustings, ahem, yeah.

Very short question sessions, I thought. Then again, people weren't all that good at sticking to the time limits in their introduction speeches (we've all been there, on coherent days I can rabble on and on incoherent days I'm even worse, but ten minutes of practice wouldn't have hurt). I'm ignoring that some of the candidates were decidedly nervous - that's to be expected when you're doing a job interview in front of a crowd and it's not a day to day activity for most people.

Tiny crowd. Sure, the place was about 40% full but that was almost entirely campaign teams (who, incidentally, would have had greater utility had they instead been out campaigning during hustings but that's a rookie mistake that happens every single year). I've already mentioned the apparent lack of publicity but I'm mentioning it again.

As the audience was mostly campaign teams, there's the most obvious explanation why there weren't all that many people eager to ask questions. Darragh Roche (as chair) seemed about half a second away from *pleading* for a single question for the presidential candidates when zero hands were initially raised. Obviously he wouldn't have pleaded, he'd quite reasonably have just shut the thing down. As a result, the quality of some of the questions for at least two of the positions (I arrived too late to hear anything from the Academic Officer candidates) was somewhat less than it might have been. Someone's going to be offended by that but I have a solution: ask better questions. Some questions were quite good, those people should get free sugar.

The question to the DP/Welfare candidates about the DP aspect of the job resulted in three boring answers. No fault on the part of either the questioner or the candidates, it's a fair and reasonable question and it will always result in boring answers - meetings, filling in for the president, blah blah. The DP part of the job being tied in with welfare is a historical thing from when there were only two officers in the SU. It's a reasonable perk to put "DP" on the CV in exchange for going to all those boring meetings where you've no real power gifted to you by the 'D' (still more than the 'V' in 'VP gives you but anyhoo...:)). No-one answered it badly.

Some good answers from the Welfare candidates about the mental health question. Catriona's answer was better than Cathal's (she talked about what she was going to do, he talked about what he'd done) but it's her core area so one would expect that. James went on a semi-coherent ramble about walking home before talking about removing the stigma from mental health (I ramble a lot so I can spot the difference between circumstantial speech and tangential speech - the first half of the answer was definitely tangential).

I can't see James being in contention after the video at the beginning of the week, the video in the middle of the week and the hustings. Seems a good chap but the sales pitch is somewhat lacking. It's a two-horse race between Cathal and Catriona.


The presidential candidates were mostly fine. None of them was bad - and there's usually one that is rather bad. I wouldn't say that any of them "won" the hust but no-one burned their candidacy live on stage either. In some ways that's a shame - I always liked the unexpected twists of 'Alfred Hitchcock Presents' when I was quite young.

With regard to the question to the presidential candidates about the worth of a Desmond (aka a 2:2), I took zero notes of the answers and spent those five minutes making jokes on facebook about the new pope. Sensational as it might have been for Adam to say that a 2:2 (or lower: historically known across the water as the "gentleman's degree") is effectively worthless, I'm not too sure I'd build a house on that statement. If it's so, from a basic utility (and eventually, a marketing) perspective, the issue is really what UL is doing about making all of its degrees, regardless of grade, marketable by the graduate. Because if a 2:2 is worth significantly less than a 2:1, to the point where one might have been better investing four years in something else, then UL has very dismal financial meetings in about five years. I'm not concerned about that and I'm not sure many students should be either - the concern from the students' and future graduates' points of view is what UL is doing about the possibility that a third-class honours from, say, TCD is worth more than a second-class honours (grade II) from UL. That's a big potential issue for graduate prospects. Then again, I'm usually far more concerned by the result of an issue than the issue itself. I'd suggest that you should be too but we all go to hell in our own way.

The question (for the presidential candidates) about openness of the SU / involvement with the SU and the diminishing number of people involved with the SU was a bit of a washout from all candidates. The question was reasonable (and good), the answers were a bit meh. I wouldn't entirely blame the candidates for this one though: the fact is that pretty much no-one has a good idea of what to do about this. And you can argue that it isn't really a problem, unless you like people to be involved with their democracy and representative organisation. I do but I'll freely tell you that even if you double the number of people involved in what people perceive to be the core-SU, that'll still be a tiny number. Having said that, there were some good suggestions from some of the candidates (Emma Porter and Kennedy O'Brien won that one, for what it's worth) and doubling the number of people involved in anything is still doubling the number of people involved.

The question about library access (aka "What's to be done about the damned secondary school pupils taking all the spaces") and printing ("aka "why can't we print a single page on the weekends") was good and resulted in four good answers. I especially liked Emma Porter's idea of security asking obvious leaving cert students to sod off when they notice leaving cert papers on their desks. Nothing will come of nothing, something may come of something. You'd think they'd be doing at least that. Every answer from the candidates on this one was good though - then again, you'd expect that, it's an obvious issue. Also some good background on the library extension from Adam Moursy (though I suggest making this info publicly available to people who weren't there), good answers from Tim Foran and Kennedy O'Brien as well.

When it came to presidential candidate sum-ups, all I wrote down was "Did no-one rehearse their sum-ups?". I also wrote "AM's sum-up least crappiest". As I apply extremely odd rules to my preparation for anything (which I can summarise as "preparing is cheating" (note to readers: it isn't, preparing is good)), it wouldn't have been that difficult to spend 45 seconds listing the four biggest manifesto items, saying that you're wonderful and adding a "vote for me, I'm ****ing awesome". But then, people can be nervous. But it's a one-minute stump speech. Don't go to meetings like that. Don't be me.

Anyway, not crap. And no-one was a joke. Sure, some candidates were better than others but that's the point of an election - you get to pick which one you think is best. For a change (and let us therefore mark this day as it rarely happens), everyone who is a candidate looked as though they could be trusted in the building alone with a box of matches. That's progress. Or a temporary aberration in the student electoral universe but, either way, it's good.

tl;dr version: Basically, candidates, you did yourself proud. And later, when all but three of you don't win, you can be proud of that.

djnr8

freyners wrote: »

I really regret that the I voted stamp is gone, would be so helpful around the place now

You can get stamped in the voting station at the union

first thing i did when i got into college this morning ha

Stephen_Byrne

Our exit poll is statistically dubious it has to be said, but Nate Silver said he didn't want a job because we couldn't pay him. The more people that vote though the more it may give a slight idea as to how the first preferences are going, or at least whose campaign team has the most Facebook accounts.

djnr8

Vote count has already surpassed last year and is touching on 3000

supackofidiots

gave my vote to Paddy The Legend Rockett, Adam The Big Mouse Moursy and after much deliberation decided to give my welfare vote again to The T-Rex, Cathal Ronan.
I had a falling out with the kayak club a few years back, however I decided to watch catriona's video and she just didn't impress me. cathal's video was good. moursy and rockett were easy picks for me.

Something tells me all three of them will lose. (if the fb poll is anything to go by)
If any of them get re-elected it will probably be Rockett.
Moursy and Ronan are in real scrappy dogfights, keeping the fingers crossed they both come out on top.

canned_ulkc

You keep saying that about the kayak club - I'd love to know what the falling out was (and why it is that someone running for election doesn't deserve your vote given that they are/have been a member?)

supackofidiots

Guilty by association.

I was told to leave training and never come back again because I playfully splashed water at a fellow member's face and then dunked her under the water.

Lads, ye'd be well advised to take spectre's advice when it comes to the issues of 2.2s and election campaigns.

The man has about 6 degrees, encompassing a whole manner of QCAs and awards, and about 26 election campaigns under his belt. Did you know he was actually campaign manager for the very first SU President John Reddington in 1972??

canned_ulkc

Hmm.... well, I'd love to know who said that to you - but it's hardly a reason (to either change a vote on that basis or for you to have been asked to never return)

Gael23

djnr8 wrote: »

Vote count has already surpassed last year and is touching on 3000

Well it was ridiculously low last year so an improvement will be easy

sigmund.jung

supackofidiots wrote: »

gave my vote to Paddy The Legend Rockett, Adam The Big Mouse Moursy and after much deliberation decided to give my welfare vote again to The T-Rex, Cathal Ronan.

Tried to stay out of this childish puerile discussion but something about this post really grinds my gears. Does anyone else find it ironic that this username is basically endorsing re-elections of the entire SU cast? Just reading over your last 10 posts, were you are basically slating everyone and anyone except Rocket and Moursy, leads me to the conclusion you're just another one of those sock-puppets. You try and trick everyone into thinking you're anti-su but you're really the opposite, one of rockett's mates probably. IT's genuinely disgusting that this type of shilling takes place on boards.

I just watched the videos there and wasn't impressed by many of the candidates. I wouldn't vote for a man that can't grow a proper beard so KOB is out. TH is obviously a joke candidate.

How AM had the nerve to criticise people with 2.2 degrees is beyond me. The lad is in third year, trying to weasel his way out of doing 4th year for the second time in a row, how dare he. He doesn't even have a degree. Some cheek.

EP, basically looked like a cosplay of Luke Skywalker, she'd get my vote purely for being opposed to the dark side.

The girl with the irish name looked the best of the welfare candidates. The strange fish in red wouldn't get my vote, i think he still needs a few years to grow up first.

Another thing that grinds my gears is that someone, probably that steatorrhea who we just couldn't properly flush, came up with the idea that welfare are devoid of criticism because all their work goes on behind closed doors. He then has the audacity to endorse CR on his facebook page. I think CR is a decent guy but when that mucous stain puts his neck out for you, you know something bad is happening in the background.

It still surprises and horrifies me when I hear PR is getting elected into education. How can you put a guy who can't finish his own FYP in charge of 12000 education? it's a genuine joke.

freyners

This thread just hits new highs every year...

Stephen_Byrne

Okay, we currently have 332 respondents to our Facebook poll. We calculate the margin of error to currently be 5.46%, which is still high. We have roughly a 9% sample although we have no way of proving that OUR 332 are people who definitely voted (but it's reasonable to assume they are). This puts with Emma Porter in the lead for President, Caitriona Ni Dhonnchu for Welfare and Daragh McCoy for Academic. Again, it should be noted that there are a lot of factors that cannot be accounted for in this poll. We can't make a prediction based on it. But it's just for interest.

Stephen - TST

Gael23

Can someone post up the results when they are announced. On co-op!

scheister

this 2:2 degree thing of adams seems to have gotten legs and gone the other way. I spoke to adam about this issue as it somethings that effects me as i ended up with a 2:2 degree so im back doing a masters trying to get the 2:1. When i spoke to Adam about this he is not talking about all courses needing this but some of them. Accounting and Law been a big 2. There are very few companies that will take on trainee accountants without a 2:1 degree. What he is looking at here is people on a QCA of 2.9-2.99 that might get bumped up depending on the board and of course the people on 2.95+ have a better change. He want other things like the PVA to be taken into account in helping people get bumped up where is the issue with that. Before people attack me i was not campaigning for anyone but did vote Adam in the end as he had the best policies from what i could see.

sigmund.jung

it's 2.2 and 2.1 not 2:1 and 2:2, it's not a ratio.

a msc won't give you a 2.1 in your undergrad. if a job / post grad requires a 2.1 in your undergrad, getting a 2.1 in your msc won't change that but good luck with it.