I also think that all those who stood for election, or who participated in any of the election campaigns, deserve a pat on the back. Both Dan and Jason should be commended because each has made a significant contribution to the recent election. YUSU needs people who are prepared to stand for election, and candidates need campaigners.

Finally, regardless of the number of RONS both myself and Jason received in the recent election, I feel we are both capable and willing to try our best. I would prefer to be judged on the progress we make as campaigners over the next year; if we aren’t successful over the next year then criticism will be fair.

I might re-evaluate my logic if I were you…

Last year, Tom S won hugely on the exit poll inspite of The Yorker that gave Nads a big lead. This year, the exit poll was incorrect and the one taken by Nouse previously was more accurate.

http://www.nouse.co.uk/2009/03/10/poll-shows-lead-for-ngwena-in-presidential-race-with-large-proportion-still-undecided/ < -- Our poll put Ngwena in front, but by a considerably larger margin than he finally won by

http://www.nouse.co.uk/2009/03/14/exit-polls-predict-narrow-win-for-langrish-in-race-for-president/ <– the “exit” poll put Langrish in front, but only by a whisker

A little amusing that Dan is mocking Jason for notching up 25% RONs given

a) How poorly his own candidate did

b) That if Dan were to himself run uncontested for a YUSU position the RON figure would be closer to 95% than 25%

But on what I saw as the main ones I voted. I was talking to a friend about the idea of having a core committee chosen by us meaning it’s more hotly contested, and then possibly this committee give interviews and decide who is going into the minor roles. He said that would just reinforce YUSU cliqueness, so I don’t know. But if in our government you had to vote for EVERY cabinet member and secretaries of various departments who would even bother? You vote for the party you ‘trust’ (i.e. the least bad one ) and they decide which ministers have the best experience to do the job for better or worse.

I guess the simplistic way of looking at it is if there are 15 different positions to vote for you spend a third less time becoming informed about the positions and the people running for them than if there were just 5 positions. And you also get the problem of uncontested positions and in the case of the RE officer, positions that noone at all runs for. I could have run for that and regardless of how capable I am I would have probably got it. (That’s not a dig at the newly elected SU guys, honest!)

Given his quote about it only really coming down to one vote, perhaps he did have to exercise this right in the LGBT election?