SFSS by-election results
I've just received word that the unofficial early results of the SFSS by-election are:
Looks like the "Revive" slate was shut out completely.
- President: Derrick Harder, 329; Bob Wilkins, 123; Eric Lyndon Koch, 73, J. J. McCullough, 67
- External Relations Officer: Graham "Sasha" Fox, 255; Nigel Tunnacliffe, 173; Anita Yung, 108
- Internal Relations Officer: Sean Magee, 331; Lindsay Gabelhouse, 158; Kristiana Bruneau, 78
- Member Services Officer: Chris Sandve, 242; Bryson Yuzyk, 183; Matthew De Marchi, 103
- Treasurer: Adam Lein, 344; Freda Carmack, 194
- At-Large Representatives: Jacqueline Hiew, 179; Joseph Paling, 169; Tyler Massé, 158; Derek Andrew, 155; Karilyn Kempton, 139; Niusha Bakhtiari, 80; Ashley Nijjer, 78; Serenna Romanycia, 29
Looks like the "Revive" slate was shut out completely.
Labels: sfu
12 Comments:
I am slightly disappointed to see Derrick win. He was the best candidate for the job but now the column "The Harder Line" will naturally have to come to an end or at least go on a leave of absence. That is just the petty outside of SFSS view.
In terms of the implications of this for SFSS, as an outside observer (read: do not give as much weight to it coming from a non-member), I believe this is good for the organization. Derrick Harder has proven himself time and time again in his column to be willing to discuss the issues that are occuring both on the campus of SFU and the greater student movement. The greater student movement definitely needs a shake-up from student leaders that have the courage to do so.
Harder definitely has the ability to stand up, I believe that he will.
SFU students should be major players in the student movement but for too long have had SFSS Presidents they are been more interested in maintaining the party discipline of the CFS instead of lifting the thumb of the CFS off of their society.
Here we have an independent President. It should be interesting to see what happens.
Further to all of this, the SFSS needs to review its election procedures. Maybe online voting should be an opinion for by-elections that must be held outside of the regular class periods.
I am not, however, suggesting going that route for elections held outside of the summer/exams.
yeah!! impeached!! Go Derrick!(sorry, Mr. President)
Hello, this is J.J.
During the course of the race I got to know a lot of the candidates, especially the other presidential ones. Well Bob and Derrick at least, I saw Eric like one time for like five seconds.
I am happy that Derrick won. I think he is a really intelligent, clever guy, and having spoken to him I am confident that he has an independent mind that will hopefully allow him to instigate some meaningful reforms to the SFSS while in office.
What I am pissed off about, however, is the fact that if I had just gotten six more votes I would have not have finished in last place. For shame, everyone who was too good to vote for me! I think the optics would have been much better if the Revive guy came in last.
One other point as well. Before running, I never realized what a weird little subculture the entire SFSS "world" is. Not only the candidates and the office-holders, but also the people who just follow the affairs of the students' union in general. I'm not bitter or anything like that, but honestly, I never realized how much of isolated subculture this is. With blogs and stuff analyzing everybody and all the rest. Throwing around names and terms and bylaws and references no ordinary student off the street could ever hope to understand the relevance of. This election in particular seems to have been decided almost exclusively by the subculture, and as a total outsider, I think I suffered strongly as a result. I think in retrospect I was totally in the wrong place at the wrong time, but live and learn. I have no intention to ever run again for anything, however.
JJ - I at the very least appreciated your participation, even if I didn't vote for you. It was nice to see an 'outsider' run for the SFSS, and interesting seeing your campaign.
However, I don't know if it was the 'subculture' that lost you votes - I think it may have been your campaign that stated that you had never been involved at all before but that's why we should have voted for you - or that we should have voted for you because you don't know anything about student politics.
I think what our society needed was people with experience running the show for a bit - to re-establish it. I would encourage you to run again in the general elections - and perhaps you may do better.
J.J.
I would be careful with how you stated your comment. To say "terms and bylaws and references no ordinary student off the street could ever hope to understand the relevance of."
states an inability to understand.
You probably meant to state "that are not commonly understood nor is the information readily available to be understood".
In terms of your feeling that a subculture exists and they are the only one to vote, why is that?
There is a subculture, society is full of them. Government is full of them.
People vote despite this.
Actually, if what you state is true, then I see an opportunity for you. Talk about the issues that students have, speak to them. Get out of speaking as part of the subculture. If it is so small then it should be easy to overcome.
I have not meant a student, that when properly asked and (most importantly) listened to, who does not have an idea of what they want the students union to do that it is currently not doing. Find out what these things are and campaign on them. You be surprised how successful an "outsider" can be when they have a platform that the majority agrees with and wants to support.
You know have experience, you be surprised how much that helps.
I came in last place in my first municipal election. That experience helped me to win my seat on UMSU Council a few years ago.
As an aside, I'd like to note that the newly elected board is scheduled for their first meeting today (Thursday) at noon. Don't know the room, but it should be easy to find out (thanks to Titus for the info! :)
I have to agree with Joey that when elections are held outside of normal class times online voting should definatley be an option for students - however, this would probably be the only situation in which i would support its usage. Overall what is the voter turnout for the by-election looking like? Approximatley 3%?
Assuming there are about 24,700 kids at SFU, about 2.4% voted. Or, to make it more fun, 97.6% did not.
Hey J.J. I just started this summer reading and its not that hard getting into it.
Also, your campaign would have been good in any other campaign but this time it was sooo off. (sorry, but next fall i might vote for you)
and for everyone who asked for the "silent majority" --Guys, ever thought about why they are called SILENT? its like advertising a mute choir..
SFSS election turnouts are always low, of course. And of course the suboptimal timing made the turnouts even worse. But as I understand it, the board was obligated to call this election, there being too few directors to call a quorate board meeting. And this way there is a quorate board at the beginning of Spring, instead of not until mid-February or whenever, if elections had been postponed until Spring term. Annoying situation, make the best of it, right?
Regarding online voting. Well. Aside from the general fears/anxiety/difficulties with any form of electronic or networked voting, there's the additional complication that SFSS elections are governed by the ByLaws, the ByLaws can only be changed at a General Meeting, and the SFSS only gets quorum at G.M.s when there's impeachment afoot. I hope we've had enough impeachment for now.
I read the Peak's last word by JJ.. glad he did not got elected..that was a pretty bad piece. Sorry, but his opinion shows he actually should be part of the "silent majority"..
What does that even mean?
Did I hit too close to home?
Column in question is here, for anyone who cares http://www.peak.sfu.ca/the-peak/2007-1/issue2/lastword.html
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home