The Executive, Media and RAG elections took place in March and seemed to be one of the most controversial elections at Royal Holloway for some time. It began with low voter turnout and nearly ended with June re-runs of the elections, perhaps you’ve been oblivious to the entire affair…Fear not, as here are the key points along with a bold suggestion for the next set of elections.

Election Campaigners

The elections did not reach quota, which the SURHUL Constitution states as ‘10% of the full membership of the Students’ Union for any cross-campus election’. Furthermore it states that if this quota is not reached then ‘a quorate General Meeting (GM) shall confirm the validity of the election.’

At the subsequent GM the ratification of the elections became a starred item but was ‘unstarred’ and discussed by those present. As such, it went to a vote for the 40-odd people who were present at the GM with 22 votes overturning the 700 students who voted for their respective candidates. This meant that the elections had not been ratified and that the positions would be re-elected alongside the currently unfulfilled positions in the June by-elections.

This led to an ‘uproar’ amongst the now de-ratified election winners and an unquantifiable amount of the student population on Facebook. A formal written request with 61 signatures led to an Emergency General Meeting on the last day of term. The GM vote was overturned and the elections were ratified preventing the need for a post-exam election re-run.

Hurray, you might be thinking – democracy wins again! That was essentially my overwhelming sentiment until I considered the fact that under 10% of the student population decided to vote in these elections. It could be because students didn’t know about the elections or perhaps they felt that none of the candidates were the right choice for them.

We could take the ‘easy route’ which so many students take and blame the failings of the current Students’ Union to attract voters – but I personally don’t think that’s the problem. Maybe the trouble isn’t with a disinterested student population – maybe it’s the voting system that the Students’ Union have inherited.

Let’s look at some of the problems within the current system.

Over one week students were able to vote for their candidate of choice, and the vast majority were made aware of the candidates by the campaigners. There really were plenty of campaigners, hassling students around the Store on Campus, Windsor Building and Bedford Library.

Whether you were on your way to work in the library, wanting to buy some lunch, or just trying to get to a lecture, they were there! You probably tried to avoid these areas – I know I’ve pretended to receive enthralling text messages on my phone just to avoid talking to the campaigners. Many students don’t want campaigners treating them like children; being pressured to vote straight away at the nearest ballot boxes. Informed decisions take a while to produce. Few people are going to talk to a campaigner for 30 seconds and immediately decide to cast their vote!

An alternative to talking to campaigners is by looking at manifestos. These were hard to find – the only copies that I could find were at the voting stations and on the various Facebook groups that appeared. If the two student publications were allowed to print information about the candidates and their aims, this could increase awareness of the elections and subsequently increase voter numbers.

I’ve been on the other side of the fence if you like – this year I was involved in two election campaigns and campaigned outside both the Windsor Building and Bedford Library (sorry!). However many students simply ignore you and walk on by. I don’t blame them – if I were in their shoes I wouldn’t want to talk to a campaigner whilst on my way to a lecture or to meet friends. A lot of the students I did talk to didn’t know that elections were under way, let alone the names of the candidates or the positions they stood for.

The current system, whereby a candidate can select up to 10 campaign team members, could be reconsidered. Instead of having students harassed and put off by loud campaigners during one intense week, maybe we could extend the voting period, but get rid of the campaigners. A bold idea? Maybe not get rid of all campaigners, but limit it to three per candidates and stop the campaigners from clogging up our walkways with large banners and small pieces of paper highlighting the positives of their candidates.

How would students know who to vote for? Well The Orbital and Insanity Radio publicised the Sabbatical elections to great effect, so what if The Orbital and Insanity were given more information about each candidate, in equal measure?

Insanity Radio did run a candidate session for these elections but this needs to be treated with the same importance as Candidates’ Question Time in the Students’ Union Building Main Hall. It would mean that voters would be able to assess their candidates and see what they would do for them and for the Students’ Union. The reform of our elections is already under way with proposals to include internet voting next year as done in other universities across the country.

There could be a deadline for candidates to announce their intention to stand, then a week for their manifestos and other information to be publicised, and then a two week period of voting. Some potential hurdles would be that the Students’ Union would have to monitor the candidates for a week longer in order to make sure that no rules were broken in canvassing, and there would be a need for more ballot box volunteers.

With increased coverage from the various student media outlets, as well as an increased voting period with fewer campaigners there is the potential for increased student awareness of the elections, increased voter turnout (to avoid being unable to reach quota again) and fewer campaigners infuriating us as we try to go about our student lives. Just some food for thought…