SRC Election Results 2005 - the Post-Mortem (1 Viewer)

[jordanv]

Well is there some validity to the concept that only 9% voted? If so that's terrible and it is quite possible that the SRC is not representative.

I however think it's doubtful.

no no he was serious about that part.

I think it was a result of apathy.

Quah however put 2 and 2 together and suggested that the main reason for voter apathy was a lack of representation, which is entirely possible but hardly likely to account for every single person who didn't vote.

I don't think that any conclusions about students being completely opposed to VSU, as has been stated several times since the elections can be drawn.

After all the shit the SRC has shoved down our throat, they couldnt even get 10 percent of students to vote? I mean, come on. No way was that a big enough stastistical sample to determine a proper representative election.

 

[Plebeian]

1. I don't see how Quah's idea of proportional representation for faculties is consistent with his opposition to affirmative action. I could throw back all your arguments: "Where do you draw the line? Do we start allocating representatives to Schools within faculties? To year groups within Schools within faculties?" etc. I think that if a particular faculty feels it is under-represented, feels it is getting screwed over, then a party which campaigned on representing the interests of that faculty would be supported.

2. Renaming things to signal a "different paradigm" can't really be a serious policy. When you say you're going to start calling the Education Collective (I presume you mean the EAG) the Education Committee instead, does that imply people have to be appointed to this committee? Or is the change purely cosmetic.

3. Even if we were to have a special representative for men, I don't think a single Gender Issues Officer or whatever could ever adequately handle the disparate concerns of both genders. In any case, I can't see how your claim that student organisations pay no attention to men's health is true, considering that the Union runs a Men's Health Day.

 

[Phanatical]

For the record, only 9% of eligible students at USYD (the undergraduate population) voted in the SRC election. While I don't have official numbers in front of me, that would translate to approximately 3000 votes, from 32000 undergraduates. Of that 9%, 10% were votes for VSU supporting tickets. So essentially 8.1% of students voted for USU-supporting tickets.

 

[Plebeian]

But that doesn't translate into 91.9% supporting VSU. If you're planning to trot out the same tired argument about "lack of interest in politics = I hate the SRC!", don't bother, you've made it before.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

The idea (I feel) is not to treat both groups in equal ways, it is to bring the group that appears to be disadvantaged up to on par with the other group. Currently mens health is a greater issue than female health, therefore more spending should be spent on mens health.

edit: But surely only 9% of potential voters voting means that people dislike the political process... I agree that it does not mean they support vsu but it definately shows there are problems.

Why isn't voting mandatory?

 

[jordanv]

Why isn't voting mandatory?

It would make the SRC a representative body, and not a left wing circle jerk.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

The howard government seems to be hinting they want to make voting voluntary =/
I guess depending on your situation you want whichever is better for you.

For the libs it's probably better if they make it voluntary because poorer people who statistically don't vote for them as much probably won't bother voting (I guess?).

For the uni it's probably better for them to keep it voluntary because only die-hard uni political freaks (usually lefties) really care about university politics beyond bitching about all the posters, but I do think there is probably around 50% (based off BOS) of people who probably do support vsu, but just don't care that much.

 

[Phanatical]

1. I don't see how Quah's idea of proportional representation for faculties is consistent with his opposition to affirmative action. I could throw back all your arguments: "Where do you draw the line? Do we start allocating representatives to Schools within faculties? To year groups within Schools within faculties?" etc. I think that if a particular faculty feels it is under-represented, feels it is getting screwed over, then a party which campaigned on representing the interests of that faculty would be supported.

I think the idea of proportional representation is one we should consider. I don't necessarily support proportional representation (there are several options that we could consider) - but I think the biggest advantage of this model is that it reaffirms the SRC's goal of representing ALL undergraduate students across the university.

2. Renaming things to signal a "different paradigm" can't really be a serious policy. When you say you're going to start calling the Education Collective (I presume you mean the EAG) the Education Committee instead, does that imply people have to be appointed to this committee? Or is the change purely cosmetic?

I do mean the EAG, and I don't want to change the approach of getting everybody involved. But I do think that the EAG lacks a framework from which it can actually devise and debate policy relevant to the education of students. Not only does a Committee suggest a more credible stance, it also provides the necessary framework by ensuring that the EAG sticks to representing students at the University. Similar approaches to all the SRC's collectives will ensure a more neutral and representative SRC.

3. Even if we were to have a special representative for men, I don't think a single Gender Issues Officer or whatever could ever adequately handle the disparate concerns of both genders. In any case, I can't see how your claim that student organisations pay no attention to men's health is true, considering that the Union runs a Men's Health Day.

One single day of the year, with absolutely no publicity. And what's the Union's idea of promoting Men's Health? Telling men that they shouldn't beat up women. We don't need a bullshit token day. We need a systematic and comprehensive approach to dealing with the very real issues faced by men within our university.

 

[Phanatical]

But that doesn't translate into 91.9% supporting VSU. If you're planning to trot out the same tired argument about "lack of interest in politics = I hate the SRC!", don't bother, you've made it before.

It might not translate into 91.9% of students supporting the Howard Government's stance on VSU. But it does translate into 91.9% of students who, from most to least relevant -

A) Don't care about the SRC enough to even vote (much less join)
B) Couldn't vote, because there were no polling booths available within a reasonable distance from them.
C) WOULD join the SRC, but don't believe others should have to - but don't want to vote for the Liberals.
D) Didn't know about voting.

 

[Xayma]

E) Understand that action was going to win and hence didn't feel the need to vote if they support them.


Phanatical, I would disagree with you there.

Just because one doesn't vote doesn't mean they wouldn't join.

There would be alot of people in Australia who wouldn't vote given the choice, but it doesn't mean they don't believe in taxation or local council rates (although the size of them might be a different matter).

They could merely consider all major groups (bar the Liberals where if you actually left your fanatasy would see that they never had a chance) would do effectively the same.

 

[transcendent]

it's kinda hard not to notice those fucking campaigners camped out in front of every exit trying to get you to vote for them, not including those campaigners who come into your lectures blabbing bullshit rhetoric about how great their policies are and how effective it's being used on campus and how it's so fucking relevant to us all.

F) chose not to vote cause they hate the voting/campaigning process

 

[Plebeian]

I think the idea of proportional representation is one we should consider. I don't necessarily support proportional representation (there are several options that we could consider) - but I think the biggest advantage of this model is that it reaffirms the SRC's goal of representing ALL undergraduate students across the university.

Way to dodge the issue. You haven't explained why guaranteed proportional representation is not OK for Union Board, but is a plausible option for SRC. You also didn't explain why the current system does not represent all undergraduate students. If Con students are really as disgruntled as you make them out to be, and you're really as much of a saviour to them as you portray yourself as, I find it hard to believe that among the 550 students (at least) there, you couldn't scrape together 80 votes.

I do mean the EAG, and I don't want to change the approach of getting everybody involved. But I do think that the EAG lacks a framework from which it can actually devise and debate policy relevant to the education of students. Not only does a Committee suggest a more credible stance, it also provides the necessary framework by ensuring that the EAG sticks to representing students at the University. Similar approaches to all the SRC's collectives will ensure a more neutral and representative SRC.

Dude, you just changed the name, you didn't institute any sort of policy framework within which to make decisions. The EAG already does debate and take action on education issues. If it didn't, there would be no anti-VSU campaign. Not to say that improvements can't be made, but you seem to be way off track with what could actually help. I also don't see how a name change makes it more neutral and "representative". Are you worried that the word "collective" might have socialist/communist overtones? If that's your concern, I'll introduce you to a friend of mine, Joseph McCarthy.

 

[Phanatical]

Way to dodge the issue. You haven't explained why guaranteed proportional representation is not OK for Union Board, but is a plausible option for SRC. You also didn't explain why the current system does not represent all undergraduate students. If Con students are really as disgruntled as you make them out to be, and you're really as much of a saviour to them as you portray yourself as, I find it hard to believe that among the 550 students (at least) there, you couldn't scrape together 80 votes.

Polling was open for a total of three hours at our campus. On the quietest day of the week, in which the Music Cafe is occupied not by students, but by members of the public there to see the Lunchtime Concert series. No offense, but this is not my idea of representative democracy.

Dude, you just changed the name, you didn't institute any sort of policy framework within which to make decisions. The EAG already does debate and take action on education issues. If it didn't, there would be no anti-VSU campaign. Not to say that improvements can't be made, but you seem to be way off track with what could actually help. I also don't see how a name change makes it more neutral and "representative". Are you worried that the word "collective" might have socialist/communist overtones? If that's your concern, I'll introduce you to a friend of mine, Joseph McCarthy.

I think you're wrong. A change in approach is ESSENTIAL for the Education Action Group to become a viable organisation. And the first way to fix it is to establish a working paradigm, and create a framework that would allow more students to contribute their ideas. Committee rules would mean that dissenting students would still be represented in ways they are not now.

 

[Plebeian]

By all means make suggestions for reforms to the EAG. Personally, despite the good work it has done, I think it needs some. But my point is that you haven't actually proposed anything substantive, you've just said we should rename it to be a committee, which is somehow supposed to magically "shift the paradigm" and "establish frameworks" (I think you've been reading Weasel Words, btw) and make it much better.

 

[Phanatical]

As a committee, the Education Committee would be subject to actual rules and regulations. Only with rules and regulations will the Education Committee be effective. That's what it comes down to.

 

[jordanv]

techie techie techie techie techie techie

Yo, bruv.

Do you support a men's officer? Yes or No?

 

[Plebeian]

I don't think so. I'm not convinced that men have enough specific problems that they need an officer. If discrimination against men was as common as discrimination against women, then we'd have a CEDAM to go with CEDAW.

Anyway, since none of us are on the SRC, and won't be for at least another year, I'm not going to continue discussing this any further because I'm not sure that it will lead to any change. Quah campaigned on things like this and was resoundingly defeated, so I don't see any of the parties in office (that's everyone, not just Action) having any particular incentive to support them.

/retires

 

[gerhard]

It might not translate into 91.9% of students supporting the Howard Government's stance on VSU. But it does translate into 91.9% of students who, from most to least relevant -

A) Don't care about the SRC enough to even vote (much less join)
B) Couldn't vote, because there were no polling booths available within a reasonable distance from them.
C) WOULD join the SRC, but don't believe others should have to - but don't want to vote for the Liberals.
D) Didn't know about voting.

No. No it really doesnt. I cant believe you seriously think this. All you can infer from the data is that 91.9% of students arent interested in student politics. It is very easy and very common (at least amongst students that I know) to enjoy what the SRC/Union provides and not be interested in student politics.

 

[ujuphleg]

This topic is pretty much exhausted, but the primary reason of the thread was to let you all know who got in without having to wade through the abdunance of (important) arguing that took place.

As a final note, I think its important for you all to know that Rose was elected to the University Senate as the Undergraduate Representative for 2006. 29,000 people were eligible to vote, and only just over 900 people did.

 

[Phanatical]

That's quite disturbing. As Undergrad Senator AND NUS President, she won't be able to devote the time to either. Also, she's a bitch who doesn't care about the constituency, so with an Action SRC and Rose as our Senate rep, we're pretty much fucked for another year.