Not true. URY elections have hands voting for uncontested but always to paper-based secret ballot for contested positions. It takes longer but is worth it. Likewise minuting of numbers is important etc. But it’s unlikely to have massively swung the vote.

In terms of ex-students and unpaid members – both are against Nouse’s rules but are unlikely to be detrimental to the voting process and are again unlikely to have massively swung the vote.

Whilst there were a few bent rules, there were no massive issues (i.e. compared to the entire Vision team paying Nouse membership to usurp the Editor or other damaging equivalents) and it’s fairly likely that Nouse have taken the issues on board and the new team will strongly consider the problems before the next election anyway!

Also. Not relevant to article. If Charlotte had promised to print 5,000 copies per issue and do 10 issues per term then it would be a comparable situation. Though we still haven’t had Lewis say explicitly that he knew it was an impossible task – and we still haven’t seen that it is indeed impossible. So maybe just leave it as having been raised and debated and consider how possible policies will be at the elections in a few weeks?

1) It was very clear where the 4 ex-York students were – some put their hands up but their votes weren’t counted.

2) There was someone at the door so although I can’t guarantee it, I find this unlikely.

3)
a) Agreed, putting hands up is not ideal but it’s the only reasonable option with the amount of time this process takes.
b) I looked around a fair amount and didn’t see anyone change their vote mid-way through. I’ll call BS on this one.

4) No they weren’t.

5) This is news to me, and probably a lot of people in the room who didn’t know the candidates well and voted entirely based on their speech. The more seasoned Nousies could vote on experience, and that is absolutely the right thing to do if you know how someone has performed over the past year.

6) People voting twice would have been caught by looking at the total vote count, sorry. Not voting is a problem?

7) Fair point

Unfortunately (fortunately?) your premises are incorrect and some I think you’ve made up on the spot, so I’m going to say your conclusion is invalid.

This discussion has been beaten to death elsewhere and investigated by YUSU who have already concluded it was okay, so please don’t reply here unless it is on topic, ie. about the comment piece.

Those are the rules of EVERY society election.

Where you at the these so-called ‘elections’? If so, you wouldn’t have a leg to stand on using this argument. The elections were an absolute disgrace and a joke to democracy. 1)There were people voting who used to write for Nouse and had come back specially to vote, i.e they were ex-students.
2) Everybody who voted had to be a member, and thus have paid the £5 membership fee, which many people hadn’t.
3) The voting was not done in secret and was done in the ridiculously undemocratic way of putting one’s hand up in the air. Obviously this meant that everyone was either copying the people next to them (namely the Nouse crowd who were influencing the votes), or chatting to those around them and deciding on a block vote.
4) Comments were being made by old/current Nouse editors alike, to the tune of who everybody should vote for, and by humiliating some members that were running.
5) Most of the major editorial positions had effectively already been decided upon before the elections so that others standing never had a chance.
6) By virtue of the way the voting was done, it was easy for people to vote twice or not vote at all, as this could not be properly monitored.
7) The election was not minuted as it was supposed to have been.

You might like to look at this article: http://www.yusu.org/blog/entry/190. I know that this was eventually overturned (due to lack of evidence/people caring) but it is undeniable that this was not a democratic election and editors were often appointed in an unfair way, i.e they had already effectively been guaranteed the position before they went to the election.

Hack Supremo – just because Nouse is funded by YUSU, does that mean that they should not be liable to criticism? Is Nouse a YUSU advert? Well, that would be truly biased journalism right there;

Nouse ARE planning to shadow YUSU for a week in a new blog planned; I doubt this would make Laura want to retract any of her comments. The article isn’t about a lack of fruit and veg – it’s the fact that Bretts centred his campaign on a promise that he knew was unworkable. And failed to tell students that;

And Lewis DID get asked his opinion, to which he answered what Laura has quoted here, “I’m human and fallible”. Nouse never runs a story without a right of reply. This is illegal. For the full quote, please refer to: http://www.nouse.co.uk/2010/01/26/bretts-knew-fruit-and-veg-couldn%E2%80%99t-happen/

Have most of Laura’s critics read this new story? This is a comment piece, it’s purely subjective, and a personal attack was not launched against Bretts. This piece was based around facts given to Nouse as outlined in the above news, and thus objective, article. Get the facts straight before abusing a piece that is intentionally subjective and opinionated in its nature – and is attacking a flawed campaign policy rather than personality.

Best,
A.

Yes, it matters. It matters because the fruit and veg stall was one of the reasons I voted for Bretts, as well as his plans about the Heslington cash point and the mini-bus. Because I disagree with Anon. saying that the uni “doesn’t give a crap about policy during the election but rewards a good campaign”. Because when I voted last year, I thought carefully about who to vote for, and made sure to check out everyone’s policies when deciding. The fact that he also ran a good campaign helped him, of course, but I think it’s a bit of a generalisation to state that the student body as a whole doesn’t care about policy.

If Bretts genuinely thought that a fruit and veg stall was possible and did his best to carry it out, then that’s one thing. If he knew it was impossible and still sold the idea to students, then that’s another. And if he WAS told and then forgot, then I don’t think that’s an acceptable excuse. Yes, we’re all human and fallible, but fallibility is less easily forgiven when it comes to matters of elected representatives who let us down and break our trust.

I agree with Catsambas on this, including that we should hear more of Bretts’s side of the story. Still, an apology at least from Bretts would be nice.

I bet the Courtyard will start selling Turkey Twizzlers next. What a joke.

p.s. pucka

p.p.s. pucka

Commented edited by a moderator.

And then we wonder why there are no honest politicians! Naturally, if you reward good campaigns and not honesty, that’s what you get.
A.

Anonymous Massive! would like to take this opportunity to announce Anonymous Massive!’s candidacy for all 6 sabbatical position, running on a platform of mind control and subliminal messaging. You want no policy and original campaigning, you got it!

Rhianna saw off competition from a well-respected incumbent, because she ran a simple campaign based on a well established brand. Her policies (all be it sound ones) were, IMO, irrelevant to her victory.

I believe the policies that Lewis came up with could have been the most un-implementable & financially recless but if he had presented them as he did last year, he would still have won.

Let’s be honest, this is the same Uni that elected a pirate. It doesn’t give a crap about policy during the election but rewards a good campaign.

When campus is about to be hit by its usual array of unoriginal posters and flyers, surely Bretts should be celebrated for one of the best (serious) campaigns of recent times? I didn’t vote for him but still think he should.

If you disagree with my comments, do point out the fault in my thinking. But retorting that I am no longer a student at York, without even commenting on my views themselves is pedantic and childish.

At least I’m honest, commenting under my name. Who knows whether you’re still a student?
A.