tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-55464373976049260432024-03-14T07:28:17.304+00:00Life: DownloadedMy thoughts on life, the universe and everything.David Morrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04261790016339571004noreply@blogger.comBlogger70125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5546437397604926043.post-91703586425666666322010-02-28T01:48:00.001+00:002010-02-28T01:50:15.681+00:00The end and a new beginningI will not be using Blogger for this blog anymore. I have been on here for a long time, but I now feel the design and layout aspects are too restrictive. The plugins don't always meet my needs either.<br />
<br />
At the time of typing, I am putting a website together. It isn't all done yet, but I have completed the blog setup (and made my first post).<br />
<br />
All of the posts on here can also be found on my new blog (along with the comments).<br />
<br />
The new location for my blog <a href="http://www.lifedownloaded.com/blog">is here</a>.David Morrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04261790016339571004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5546437397604926043.post-6183107521927248652009-03-13T11:34:00.015+00:002009-03-13T15:19:45.607+00:00HUU Elections 2009 - The delayed PresidentOne of the more controversial aspects of the elections that recently took place at Hull University Union was the disqualification of one of the Presidential candidates - <a href="http://www.hullstudent.com/elections/content/105715/sabbatical_elections_200910/candidate_nomination_forms/president/jamie_scudamore/">Jamie Scudamore</a>. Due to that decision, made by Returning Officer Kat Docherty, Jamie appealed and that meant an Election Appeals Committee had to be arranged. This delayed the result by a week.<br /><br /><font color="#A6FFA6"><b>Final round results</b></font><br />As the decision to disqualify Jamie Scudamore was reversed by the Election Appeals Committee, he has been elected President and all of the results from the polling period stand. R.O.N was out of the running first. In the next round Ben Hall and Rory Stobo were out of the running, which meant there was three candidates in the final round:<br /><br /><table><tr><td><b>Candidate</b></td><td><b>Votes</b></td></tr><tr><td>Jamie Scudamore</td><td>1152</td></tr><tr><td>Amy Hopkinson</td><td>655</td></tr><tr><td>Andrew Barrett</td><td>471</td></tr></table><font color="#A6FFA6"><b>Q&A with Alex Hamilton</b></font><br /><img src="http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/4782/alexh.jpg" alt="Alex Hamilton" /><br />After the result of this particular election was announced, I had several questions. A number of rumours were being circulated and I wanted to make sure I had the truth before blogging anything. Yesterday I sent an email to <a href="http://www.hullstudent.com/ust">Alex Hamilton</a> (the UST and Deputy Returning Officer), containing the questions that I had and I got the following responses this morning:<br /><br /><b>Are the minutes of the EAC going to be published on hullstudent?</b><br /><i> I'll have to check with Paul what the availability of closed committee minutes is. The reasons to go into closed session were the reports of what has happened previously in EACs, regarding intimidation of the EAC by the behaviour and amount of people present (Amy had arrived with about 15 very vocal supporters); also some of the evidence given would be prejudicial against one of the complainants if the EAC decided to re-run the election so it was deemed unsuitable to be heard publically.</i><br /><br /><b>Is it true that there was a 12-0 vote in favour of Jamie Scudamore winning, despite him breaking rules?</b><br /><i>The vote was 10-0 as only ten could make the meeting (quoracy is seven). They decided that the infringements during the election that were dealt with to the RO’s satisfaction were not grounds to exclude him and that the only unresolved issue, the one for which the RO excluded the candidate was insubstantial, especially given the circumstances in which it was initiated.</i><br /><br /><b>Was the EAC called because he was canvassing (e.g. knocking on doors) in areas where he wasn't supposed to?</b><br /><i>It was not. There has been a rumour of a local council byelaw prohibiting this, but no proof has been offered. I have myself researched this and the only thing I could find was a byelaw preventing the employment of children for door knocking/ canvassing without an adult present; which would of course imply that adults can do so.</i><br /><br /><b>There have been accusations of rigging (I'm not going to name anyone). Can I get your confirmation that it was completely random selection that decided who was part of the EAC?</b><br /><i>I can confirm the students were entirely random, as the Chair of Council (Paddy) and James Brooks can attest to.<br /><br />The process I used to select the students was <a href="http://random.org/integers/">http://random.org/integers/</a> to generate 200 random positive integers, these numbers then corresponded to a cell on an excel spreadsheet of all students, which has them listed 1-17000ish. These names were then checked against the list of candidates, proposers and seconders. I then sent an email to these students explaining the situation (an appeal had been made which required adjudication). I also checked the respondents’ facebooks for any campaign ties, and then found a time that at least 7 could make to hold the meeting. I also did not know any of the EAC.<br /><br />I must also point out that I refused to release the names of the EAC prior to the meeting, despite threats of a motion of no-confidence against myself (which was subsequently made) from Amy’s campaign team, notably Sam Greenwood.</i><br /><br /><b>What are your thoughts on the decision of the EAC to elect Jamie?</b><br /><i>I am of course impartial to any proceedings during the election period. I am satisfied though that the EAC carried out their duty satisfactorily and professionally.</i><br /><br />Alex finished off the email by stating:<br /><blockquote><i>"There have been a great deal of rumours surrounding the President election (as there are almost every year), this year I feel the difference is that two actively political campaigns have not succeeded against what is seen as an outsider to HUU politics, and due to the last minute resignation of the previous RO, a Sabbatical needing to take on the deputy duties, as I am available on campus during the period – as a result the parties involved moved their attentions from campaigning for a victory to undermining the processes involved.<br /><br />The recently elected Officers have a massive democratic mandate as a result of our highest ever turnout, and as such it is a shame that some groups within our democratic structures are intent on ignoring and undermining this."</i></blockquote>First of all I have to thank Alex for taking the time to answer the questions. It would have been easy to ignore them and keep speculation circulating around the union.<br /><br />Despite the detail of these responses, I still have some concerns. Kat Docherty was only present on the results night and there is no evidence to suggest she was present at the EAC to justify her decision. His refusal to release the names of the EAC is also worrying. <br /><br />There is only his word which states the membership wasn't rigged in any way. This doesn't help to make the union transparent and also means there is nothing to prove that what he says about committee selection is correct. In the past, I have seen EAC membership announced and it's even more important given that there's a no-confidence motion against him.<br /><br />In point 3, he stated that he could not find evidence to prove that the accusation about canvassing was against the rules. After searching election laws, <a href="http://www.hullstudent.com/files/minisites/2963/2003_Interim_(ELECTIONS)_(2).pdf">Standing Order 2003</a> (governing elections) and the HUU <a href="http://www.hullstudent.com/files/minisites/2963/HUU_BYELAWS_FINAL.pdf">Bye-laws</a> I could not find anything either. If there is proof - then please leave a comment on this blog post.<br /><br />If there's no proof of that though, what was the reason for the initial disqualification? This needs to be stated to make sure the union remains transparent.<br /><br />Alex also mentioned the subject of the previous RO (Paul Tatton), resigning from that position. Even though Alex felt an impartial replacement needed to be found, this does not mean that he should necessarily be the automatic choice as a deputy. As I have stated in a previous blog post, theoretically he could influence the result and (as he rightly states), executive officers are meant to be impartial.<br /><br /><font color="#A6FFA6"><b>Public opinion</b></font><br />I have asked other people what they feel about the decision to elect a candidate who was initially disqualified. One person said:<br /><i><blockquote>"I think its right<br />There is no way you can say that the number of votes cast has been dramatically affected by what happened.<br />His vote count was far too high for that."</blockquote></i>I replied by stating that "while it's true that there is no proof that the two things are linked, is it right that a person who was initially disqualified should be elected?". The person said:<br /><i><blockquote>"i still feel it was in the best interests of the students and the union itself"</blockquote></i>It is an interesting point. Not being able to found out who can rightly call themselves President as soon as possible can have a huge impact. It affects training schedules, teamwork and could potentially mean voters lose faith in the union's ability to manage itself properly.<br /><br />However, it is important that those who are elected have the right to hold that position and all necessary steps need to be taken to ensure that.<br /><br /><font color="#A6FFA6"><b>Summary and Conclusion</b></font><br />I would say that the biggest problem is communication. As I have mentioned, there is evidence of a lack of transparency and people need this to know that their votes have meaning. There needs to be appropriate publicity for all elections and all info that is published needs to be 100% accurate.<br /><br />The presidential election could have been handled better, but I applaud Alex for giving answers to important questions in an effort to reduce the number of concerns people have. If you have any issues with the election, it is always important to contact the RO or the deputy.<br /><br />It will be interesting to hear what happens with the no-confidence motion. There seems to be a large amount of support for it, but will people give up as the election process is now completed?<br /><br />So, what do you think?<br /><br /><b>Technorati tags:</b> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Election">Election</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/HUU">HUU</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Politics">Politics</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Student+Unions">Student Unions</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/President">President</a>David Morrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04261790016339571004noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5546437397604926043.post-52604861901005097332009-03-06T09:05:00.010+00:002009-03-06T11:56:01.334+00:00HUU Elections 2009 - the results (with a twist)The last day of voting and the announcement of the results were both very eventful. Naturally, there was a lot of tension and when each result was announced, there was a huge amount of emotion shown. Amongst the chanting and the tears though, we now have most of the team that will be in charge of the union for the 09/10 academic year.<br /><br /><b><font color="#A6FFA6">A note about the presidential election</font></b><br />The following quote is from a statement made by Kat Docherty, the returning officer for this year (the full statement can be found <a href="http://www.hullstudent.com/news/index.php?page=article&news_id=57275">here</a>):<br /><i><blockquote>"During the course of the elections, a number of complaints were received by the Returning Officer regarding a particular candidate for the position of President. Some of these complaints were upheld and the decision made to exclude the candidate from the elections."</blockquote></i>The disqualified candidate (several reliable sources told me it was <a href="http://www.hullstudent.com/elections/content/index.php?page=105715">Jamie Scudamore</a>), has appealed the decision and there will be an Election Appeals Committee meeting that decides who becomes President next year. As a result of this I will be posting the result of the Presidential election in an extra (fourth) entry about the elections.<br /><br /><b><font color="#A6FFA6">The results</font></b><br /><b>VP Welfare</b><br /><table><tr><td><b>Candidate</b></td><td><b>Votes</b></td></tr><tr><td>Alice Marshall</td><td>910</td></tr><tr><td>R.O.N.</td><td>318</td></tr></table><br /><b>VP Community (final round results)</b><br /><table><tr><td><b>Candidate</b></td><td><b>Votes</b></td></tr><tr><td>Ben Wilcox</td><td>681</td></tr><tr><td>Katie Beth-Hardy</td><td>350</td></tr><tr><td>Andrew Corless</td><td>331</td></tr></table><br /><b>VP Education (final round results)</b><br /><table><tr><td><b>Candidate</b></td><td><b>Votes</b></td></tr><tr><td>Chris Marks</td><td>530</td></tr><tr><td>Mark Tyson</td><td>398</td></tr></table><br /><b>VP Sports (final round results)</b><br /><table><tr><td><b>Candidate</b></td><td><b>Votes</b></td></tr><tr><td>James 'Wayne' Kerr</td><td>930</td></tr><tr><td>Nathan Webster</td><td>921</td></tr></table><br /><b>Chair Scarborough</b><br /><table><tr><td><b>Candidate</b></td><td><b>Votes</b></td></tr><tr><td>Darius Navickas</td><td>249</td></tr><tr><td>James Nicholson</td><td>221</td></tr></table><br /><b>Chair ISA</b><br /><table><tr><td><b>Candidate</b></td><td><b>Votes</b></td></tr><tr><td>Line Kristensen</td><td>543</td></tr><tr><td>Joe Kitanosono</td><td>156</td></tr><tr><td>R.O.N.</td><td>69</td></tr></table><br /><b>Chair Media Committee</b><br /><table><tr><td><b>Candidate</b></td><td><b>Votes</b></td></tr><tr><td>William Langdale</td><td>518</td></tr><tr><td>R.O.N.</td><td>207</td></tr></table><br /><b>Chair Campaigns & Democracy</b><br /><table><tr><td><b>Candidate</b></td><td><b>Votes</b></td></tr><tr><td>Basit Mohammed</td><td>530</td></tr><tr><td>Kaveh Azarhoosh</td><td>409</td></tr></table><br /><b>Other winners</b><br />There were several other positions up for grabs during the elections. One very intersting election was for the position of Chair RAG. In the final round, Ellen Hinsley won by just two votes. It's also interesting to note that after the first round she was only leading by three.<br /><br />Some of the other elections only had one human candidate and the Re-open nominations option, so it was almost certain who would win that. For example, that happened in the case of Disabled Students Chair (won by Stephen Lee), the Male Chair of LGBT (won by Daniel Horner) and the Chair of the Mature Students Committee (won by Luke Howard-Pask).<br /><br /><b><font color="#A6FFA6">Comments on the results</font></b><br />I find the result for the VP Education election very interesting. Chris Marks has managed to repeat what Richard Jackson did in last year's elections by winning despite having no experience of the area he's going to be in charge of. Hopefully, the students thought his policies were good enough. I also have to mention that Mark Tyson wasn't helped by his campaign team being absent most of the time. I have mentioned in a previous post that this was disgraceful. If you don't have a noticeable physical presence at election time, you're going to be disadvantaged.<br /><br />The VP Sport election was incredibly tight (nine vote difference). I think that has to be one of the closest results for a full-time officer position in a number of years.<br /><br /><img src="http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/5559/img0331.jpg" /><br />The picture above shows Nathan Webster (runner-up in the VP Sport election) doing some karaoke with some of the winners (I have to point out that the choice of song was incredibly clichéd), which shows in most cases, elections were cleanly fought and people were friends afterwards - which is nice to see. It's just things like the presidential election which casts a shadow over everything.<br /><br /><b><font color="#A6FFA6">Voter turnout/apathy</font></b><br />This was something that really impressed me. The turnout was 3087 and that is a 58% increase on the previous. Congratulations have to go to the union for improving it by that much. The biggest change to the voting setup was using the university portal as a login method, so I assume the decision to use that helped improve the turnout.<br /><br />Another important figue is what the turnout is as a percentage of the total student population. According to the university website, the number of student scurrently stands at 19,818. Assuming that there were no people who opted out of union membership, that means 15.58% of students voted. <br /><br />While that is still an impressive figure both compared to previous years and compared to other unions, it still means that the majority of students didn't vote. It means that next year's UEC still have work to do. However, it is always hard to get rid of student apathy. I can't see anything like 90% turnouts anytime soon.<br /><br /><b><font color="#A6FFA6">Summary and Conclusion</font></b><br />This election has been 'mixed', to say the least. While most elections have been fought cleanly, things like the presidential election have caused considerable controversy and tarnished the outcome. The turnout was great. Also, many candidates performed well, despite not having that many posters or a physical presence.<br /><br />Another thing to note is R.O.N. Although in some cases that option was removed in the first round, a surprising number of people voted for it. That has both positives and negatives. It means that more people are willing to engage with the political process, but it also means that they are prepared to delay things. Having said that, if it means the best person gets chosen for the job - it's a good thing.<br /><br />So, what do you think? <br /><br /><b>Technorati tags:</b> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/HUU">HUU</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Student+Unions">Student Unions</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Election">Election</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Politics">Politics</a>David Morrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04261790016339571004noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5546437397604926043.post-14621274382035451542009-03-04T11:34:00.017+00:002009-03-04T16:30:59.841+00:00HUU Elections 2009 - Polling daysBefore I get onto the subject of this entry, I should point out that the current UST (<a href="http://www.hullstudent.com/ust">Alex Hamilton</a>) sent a message to me and said that as a result of my discovery about the confusing Returning Officer notices, the incorrect notice has been removed from Hullstudent.com. He has also informed me that there are plans to work on improving the mentions of the Election Appeals Committee in the relevant standing orders.<br /><br />Anyway, at the time of typing, it's the second polling day of the elections at Hull University Union.<br /><br /><b><font color="#a6ffa6">Physical presence</font></b><br /><img src="http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/7857/3324056032f9a7c0c7b3.jpg" /><br />Oddly, the campaign teams were allowed to have a presence before the polling started. This is a strange decision by the union because anyone who talked to the campaign teams couldn't go and vote afterwards.<br /><br />It was good to see that at least some of the teams were out there from early on though - it definitely shows committment. Unfortunately, I spoke to one candidate who said his campaign team had "slept in", which is incredibly lazy, unhelpful and shows a huge lack of support. Sure some people might have lectures during the day and, to be fair, they should be allowed to attend those. However, not everyone has lectures from 9-6, so they can be around some of the time. I suspect the candidate I spoke to will have had words with his team!<br /><br />On the first polling day, there was a solid presence outside the Brynmor Jones Library. It is a massive improvement on last year, when large proportions of the teams only turned up on the final day. However, as it was the last opportunity for people to vote, you can understand why they all appeared!<br /><br /><img src="http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/9642/33261751892001aa18f8.jpg" /><br />One thing I saw that was disappointing was campaign team members hanging around where people were voting. There was two or three from one team and someone else who was quite close to voters trying to give them stickers. This is very much against the rules (<a href="http://www.hullstudent.com/files/minisites/2963/2003_Interim_(ELECTIONS)_(2).pdf">Standing Order 2003, point 28(e)</a>) and all candidates should have explained this to their teams (the standing order is issued at the procedural meeting to all candidates - points 15 and 25(a) of S.O. 2003). I know that at least one of the people in that area was (or still is) a Union Councillor, so that's even more disgraceful. Naturally, I reported this to the UST and as far as I know, he's going to put a notice up about that, which is better than nothing.<br /><br /><b><font color="#a6ffa6">Gimmicks</font></b><br /><img src="http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/7936/14484861.jpg" /><br />Gimmicks are almost an ever-present part of student union elections across the country. They are meant to introduce a bit of fun because the theory is that many students think politics is boring. If politics is made interesting, then people maybe more likely to listen to what you have to say and vote for you. As you can see from the two pictures above, the gimmickry comes in a variety of forms and for some voters it does work. However, it's not for everyone.<br /><br />I am not a fan of gimmicks in this context at all. Although they may get the occasional laugh, students want a student union that 'just works', provides enough services and represents them - basically good value for money. I'm not sure you can get that across by using an inflatable castle, shiny wigs or things like juggling. If anything, the latter could be a metaphor for not being able to stabilise finances - especially if you drop the juggling balls!<br /><br /><a href="http://susuwelfareofficer.blogspot.com/">Tom Bramall</a>, the Welfare Officer in 2008 for the <a href="http://www.shef.ac.uk/union/">University of Sheffield Students' Union</a>, summed it up best by saying:<br /><i><blockquote>"So when your at the ballot box don't think who has the catchiest slogan or the most gimmicks, think - Who's going to represent my needs, my wants and help make my University life the best ever."</blockquote></i><b><font color="#a6ffa6">Publicity</font></b><br />In the HUU elections, you can use many forms of publicity, such as radio interviews, flyers, posters and stickers. They can have varying forms of success - especially the flyers and stickers. This is because your average student often feels hassled by the various campaign teams. The best strategy would be to say something short and concise, then if they're not interested, simply leave them alone. Forcing people to wear stickers doesn't exactly attract their vote. It might even stop them from voting altogether.<br /><br />As for posters, there are a number of pitfalls here. The main one is too much text. When people walk by your poster, they are not going to want to read several paragraphs - especially if they are rushing to e.g. a lecture or a meeting. The best thing is short sentences or bullet points.<br /><br />The next thing is coverage. There are two ways of doing this. One is to simply put lots of posters up everywhere. However, this only works if you have a large campaign team because when the posters go up, everyone is trying to get in front of you to grab a prime location. If you have a small team, you'd have to be very quick and determine which are the best spots first. These tend to be near the stairs or anything at eye level. Nobody is likely to kneel down to read a lot of text on a crowded piece of A4 (or A3).<br /><br />The other way works if you have a small team. If there is already a large collection of posters in one area that are one colour and you have a poster that is substantially different, put in the middle of the large collection. As it is different, people will notice it. Once again, the stairs and anything at eye level is a good place to go. This method can also work if you have limited camapign funds.<br /><br />When I was campaigning in 2006, I had a very small team (at times it was myself, but I did have two others who alternated). This made it difficult when putting up posters, but while everyone was concetrating on one area of the building, I rushed up to other areas and took full advantage of the empty space.<br /><br /><img src="http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/2349/332323280352414ef6d4.jpg" /><br /><br />In the picture above, you will see that those posters aren't at eye-level. However, they can be seen when you're near the top of a nearby staircase. Providing the text is big enough, you might get away with that.<br /><br />This year, I've noticed that some candidates haven't done any posters. This surprises me, but it might appeal to those voters who don't like how excessive postering makes the union look a mess (believe it or not there are restrictions on where you can put them - point 28 of S.O. 2003). However, this only works if the voters know who you are via other means. You also have to think that not everyone will have a detailed look at the nomination forms.<br /><br /><b><font color="#a6ffa6">Summary and Conclusion</font></b><br />I think the physical presence of campaign teams this year has been very good. Poster coverage has been ok too, although some will suffer because they haven't put any up - either in the major locations or nowhere at all. I am also disappointed by the occasional bit of rule-breaking, but this often happens. Candidates really should remind their teams about the restrictions.<br /><br />I'm not entirely sure about voter interest so far - I haven't seen crowds of potential voters surrounding people in brightly coloured t-shirts. Having said that, the best way to tell is when the voting figures are released. I'd also like to see what happens on the final polling day and whether activity picks up then.<br /><br />So, what do you think?<br /> <br /><b>Technorati tags:</b> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/HUU">HUU</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Student+Unions">Student Unions</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Election">Election</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Politics">Politics</a>David Morrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04261790016339571004noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5546437397604926043.post-35842138205347623422009-03-02T00:14:00.003+00:002009-03-02T00:16:48.302+00:00HUU Elections 2009 – Candidates & ControversyI haven’t posted since November last year. To be honest, I had lost the motivation to blog and I had other things that used up my time. Each of my posts take a while to research. Anyway, certain things have happened recently which have given me some motivation again.</p> <p><strong><font color="#a6ffa6">The importance and history of elections</font></strong> <br />At Hull University Union, the elections are some of the most important things to happen in the academic year. Unfortunately, apathy is rampant in student unions. It is the job of the executive to effectively communicate the importance and to use more than one medium, which will increase the chances of the relevant information being seen. In the past at HUU, the percentage of students voting has been <a href="http://www.hullstudent.com/news/index.php?page=article&news_id=8538">below 20%</a> (most of the time it’s below 15%). It would be good if the percentage goes up each year. If you vote then there’s a greater chance of the best candidates getting elected. </p> <p><strong><font color="#a6ffa6">Candidates</font></strong> <br />Once again, all of the major positions have candidates. However, it concerns me that some have only one candidate (e.g. <a href="http://www.hullstudent.com/elections/content/index.php?page=105505">VP Welfare</a>). While this doesn’t necessarily mean the one candidate will be bad, having some competition is always better. In the VP Education category, only one person has any student rep experience (student reps being one of the things VP Ed is responsible for). This could be problematic as experience of the area can provide a better understanding of the role. However, previous elections have shown that a non-rep can get successfully elected (see the <a href="http://www.hullstudent.com/elections/content/21481/sabbatical_elections_archived/vp_ar_result/">‘08 VP AR results</a> and the <a href="http://www.hullstudent.com/elections/content/index.php?page=20578">Richard Jackson</a> victory).</p> <p>I don’t like criticising an individual candidate, but I think one of the people attempting to become President is severely harming his chances by what he has written on his <a href="http://www.hullstudent.com/elections/content/index.php?page=105725">nomination form</a>. The reasons for standing should be detailed and contain policy ideas, as well as information about relevant experience. However, he is not breaking rules set out the the <a href="http://www.hullstudent.com/files/minisites/2963/2003_Interim_(ELECTIONS)_(2).pdf">standing order governing elections</a>. It is up to the voting members to decide if this is acceptable.</p> <p><strong><font color="#a6ffa6">Major discrepancy</font></strong> <br />As I have already mentioned, communication of relevant information is important. Unfortunately, I have noticed some problems in this area and it worries me greatly.</p> <p>One of the most important people in any election is the <strong>Returning Officer. </strong>Point 4 of <a href="http://www.hullstudent.com/files/minisites/2963/2003_Interim_(ELECTIONS)_(2).pdf">Standing Order 2003</a> states:</p> <blockquote> <p><em>“The Returning Officer (RO) is to be appointed by the Union Executive Committee when elections are called and can be either a permanent member of Union Staff or an assigned National Union of Students RO. Notification of the appointment is to be posted by the General Manager’s Secretary on the elections board within forty eight hours.”</em></p> </blockquote> <p>In the <a href="http://www.hullstudent.com/files/minisites/2963/candidate_pack_ver_10_tinternet.pdf">Election Handbook</a>, it states the Returning Officer for this year is <strong>Kathryn Docherty</strong>, who is a member of staff at the <a href="http://www.nus.org.uk/">NUS</a>. However, if you go <a href="http://www.hullstudent.com/elections/content/87905/returning_officer_notice/">here</a>, you will find that <strong>Paul Tatton</strong> (the Union General Manger) was chosen as the RO.</p> <p>You will see in the above quote that the RO is announced on the election board. Fair enough – that name will have to be considered accurate. However, this confusion on hullstudent.com is likely to confuse many students as few will read right through the standing order to find out about the election board. The website would be a more obvious port of call.</p> <p>The bigger notice that mentions Paul Tatton will probably be the one that students see first. This is because the point about Kathryn Docherty is hidden in the middle of one download and is not shown anywhere else. If it turns out that Paul Tatton is not the RO, then this demonstrates both a lack of transparency and clarity. In both cases, there are no details about how to contact those people. If people have a complaint or other issue, they might not know who to talk to.</p> <p><strong><font color="#a6ffa6">Other issues</font></strong> <br />The previous point is probably the biggest problem in my opinion, but there other things that need to be mentioned that are related to clarity and transparency.</p> <p>Point 7 of S.O. 2003 states what will happen if there is a <strong>serious or wilful</strong> breach of election procedures:</p> <blockquote> <p><em>“If the RO has any doubts as to the eligibility of a candidate or considers that there has been a serious or wilful breach of election procedures then disqualification is mandatory.”</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Later on in the document, point 25(a) mentions rules for campaign team members:</p> <blockquote> <p><em>“Candidates are responsible for the behaviour of their team members during the election campaign. It is their responsibility to ensure that all of their campaign team are briefed on the rules and regulations surrounding elections. Candidates are all provided with Standing Orders governing elections and it is imperative that they relay this information to their teams and explain that many of the rules also apply to team members. If a complaint is made it will be referred to the RO who will then decide on the appropriate action to take, see 7.”</em></p> </blockquote> <p>The above mentions that point 7 talks about appropriate action for the RO to take. However, that only talks about disqualification. Nowhere does point 7 mention the EAC (Election Appeals Committee) or what happens in the case of a minor issue.</p> <p>This could be interpreted in two ways:</p> <ol> <li>It is simply badly worded and should say something like: <em>“for an example of appropriate action, see point 7".</em> </li> <li>The only appropriate action for any complaint is disqualification, but what if it’s only a minor issue? Where does the EAC fit into this? </li> </ol> <p>This point needs to be much clearer.</p> <p>During the elections, the Returning Officer can choose any number of Assistant Returning Officers (point 6 of S.O. 2003). There are also eligibility restrictions (they must be a full member of the union who is not a proposer or seconder). Looking at this point, it is perfectly possible for a part-time UEC member to be chosen or supporter who is neither a proposer or seconder. </p> <p>This introduces an element of bias. There’s also nothing to suggest the names of AROs will be released. These points show a lack of detail and transparency.</p> <p><strong><font color="#a6ffa6">Summary and Conclusion</font></strong> <br />The issues I have mentioned above have varying levels of importance, but I think it’s clear that a number of them relate to the role of the returning officer, as well as communicating in a clear and transparent fashion. The major problem is finding out exactly who the RO is and how to contact them. Other points can hopefully be addressed in the next iteration of S.O. 2003.</p> <p>My next post will relate to the polling days and the post after that will be a general post-mortem of the whole election process.</p> <p>So, what do you think? I welcome any comments from students, UEC members and anyone else who is interested.</p> <p><strong>Technorati tags</strong>: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/HUU">HUU</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Student+Unions">Student Unions</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Elections">Elections</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Politics">Politics</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Governance">Governance</a>David Morrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04261790016339571004noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5546437397604926043.post-24486656621836619722008-11-05T09:39:00.004+00:002008-11-05T14:15:10.342+00:00Obama 338 - 163 McCain<img src="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/POLITICS/11/04/obama.transcript/art.obama.speech.cnn.jpg" /><br /><br />As you can see from the result above, the Illinois Senator Barack Obama was elected to be the next President of the United States. He will start that job on January 20th, 2009.<br /><br /><b>Results breakdown</b><br />Here is a graphical representation of who won each state:<br /><img src="http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/2814/resultns7.jpg" /><br />Here is a simple breakdown of the numbers<br /><table><tr><td><b>Choice</b></td><td><b>No. states</b></td></tr><tr><td>Democrat</td><td>28</td></tr><tr><td>GOP</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>Incomplete</td><td>2</td></tr></table><br /><a href="http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/">The result</a> above is about electoral college votes and that's what decided who won the states. Remember that the votes of the people don't count in the US, although it's expected that the members of the Electoral College assigned to each state will vote the way the people do. It hasn't always happened like that though (have a look at the results from the 2000 Gore vs. Bush election).<br /><br /><b>Big switch</b><br />One of the most interesting facts from this result is that nine states switched there support and in all cases it was from GOP (the Republicans) to Democrat. Those states included Florida, an important state in 2000 and has been Republican for a number of years. It was an area that Rudy Giuliani concentrated on heavily when he was campaigning.<br /><br />What reasons could there be for the big switch in those nine states? Well, there are several possibilities. A campaign theme for McCain was based around fear (because of the terrorist attacks). Maybe Obama's message of hope was more appealing. The VP picks have been frequently analysed and maybe the gaffes of Sarah Palin were a factor.<br /><br /><b>Exit poll analysis</b><br />The <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1">exit polls on CNN</a> reveal some interesting information about the way people voted. Some of it is stating the obvoius, but it's better when it's confirmed with numerical data.<br /><br />It seems a large proportion of John McCain's votes came from the older white population. Obama dominated the young and non-white demographics. As an example, 55% of the white population voted for McCain and a spectacular 94% of African-Americans went for Obama. Another example is that McCain got 53% of the 65 and older demographic.<br /><br />This goes to confirm that age and race still play a major part in the election. It's worrying, but not unexpected.<br /><br /><b>Speeches</b><br />The following is Barack Obama's victory speech:<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JiERG72bH8Q&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JiERG72bH8Q&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />This is the sort of speech that Obama has been giving throughout the camapign. Although it is full of inspirational talk and essentially a message of hope and change, it doesn't give us anything new.<br /><br /><b>Lack of detail in speech</b><br />He doesn't go into specifics about all his policies either. A criticism of him has been that he hasn't done that thorughout his campaign. However, I believe he has - for example, he has a <a href="http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HomelandSecurityFactSheet.pdf">plan for improving national security</a> freely available on his website and it contains budget figures, military numbers and deadlines. Also, he can give us more detail when he actually gets into the Whitehouse because then he'll have access to more information.<br /><br /><b>GOP defeat</b><br />John McCain was <a href="http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYbBmMmElgU_AjfYlbWgYFe66cqAD948QCI81">gracious in defeat</a>, saying that he now hopes that America can move forward:<br /><blockquote>"This is an historic election, and I recognize the special significance it has for African-Americans and the special pride that must be theirs tonight"</blockquote><blockquote>"These are difficult times for our country. And I pledge to him tonight to do all in my power to help him lead us through the many challenges we face."</blockquote><b>International recognition</b><br />There were many leaders who congratulated Obama on his victory - but then that's to be expected. They want to have good relationships with one of the most powerful nations on earth. It's something that's been done over many years. <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brown-congratulates-obama-992873.html">Here</a> is what Gordon Brown had to say:<br /><blockquote>"I hope to be able to work with Senator Obama to bring the world together so that we can face these difficult times with more coordination and more unity than we've seen before."</blockquote><b>Problems</b><br />It seemed to be a relatively smooth election day. The only <a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/V/VOTING_PROBLEMS?SITE=WVEC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT">problems</a> that were reported mainly focused on long queues and faulty e-voting systems. The queues are unavoidable, but they could be minimised if more polling stations and voting booths were made available. It's a simple formula. The availability of voting machines cannot be based on the turnout of a previous election because it doesn't take into account the candidates and the current public feeling towards politics and other current affairs. <br /><br />E-voting was something heavily criticised in previous elections and it is something that <a href="http://lifedownloaded.blogspot.com/2008/03/e-voting-should-we-use-it.html">I've blogged about</a> before, but providing more research and development is done, it can work.<br /><br /><b>Summary and conclusion</b><br />It has been a very long election process. Most people will agree that it has been too long. There needs to be some reform in this area soon. The scheduling of primaries needs to be worked on too - entire states were robbed of the delegates that would normally go to the party conventions where the presidential candidates are announced.<br /><br />It has also been heavily money-driven. There were several stories in the media about <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php">campaign funding</a>. Several people support the idea of a funding cap. It's something I agree with because if everyone has the same amount of money, it shifts the focus from finances and onto the important politics.<br /><br />Despite all that, I believe a high calibre candidate has been elected as President and hopefully his promise of change will be reality during his tenure (whether it's four or eight years).<br /><br />So, what do you think?<br /><br />Technorati tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Poltics">Politics</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/US+Election">US Election</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/John+McCain">John McCain</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Barack+Obama">Barack Obama</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Government">Government</a>,David Morrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04261790016339571004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5546437397604926043.post-20970968481070339432008-10-20T13:38:00.011+01:002008-10-22T12:05:01.142+01:00All the excitement of a governance reviewI won't bore you with the reasons why I haven't blogged much recently. I could have posted my opinions on the credit crunch or the latest news about the US election, but I'm not going to today - that will come later. This post is more of a continuation of my last post as it's about HUU's latest governance review.<br /><br />The last post analysed the draft constitution when it was at it's green paper stage. Now it's after the white paper stage and it's time for a referendum - the point where the student population gets to decide whether the document is acceptable.<br /><br /><b>Publicity</b><br />I have to admit that the publicity for the voting period has been superb. There's been balloons, flyers, posters, information on HUU's <a href="http://www.hullstudent.com">website</a> and more. Some people might say that it's too much (too many posters was often a complaint in previous sabbatical elections) however, you cannot say that they haven't made people aware that something is happening. There was a budget of £5k for this campaign though (see minutes of the UEC meeting from <a href="http://hullstudent.com/files/UEC_20aug08.doc">August 20th</a>).<br /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3018/2964061190_4110795c9a.jpg" /><br /><br />There is a couple of things wrong with the publicity though. Firstly, they don't have the details of how to vote on the flyers (e.g. website). A big ommission, especially considering not everyone goes on the union's website regularly. <br /><br />Secondly, everything says 'vote yes'. This is a classic psychological tactic that used in the NUS and used by a number of factions within the student movement. It plants a thought in the mind of the student populus that there is only one option, when there's clearly two. The whole point of having a vote is allowing students to make their own decision. The union should present their proposed documents alongside the facts and the history of the governance review. If the UEC were right, then it's quite possible that the students could vote yes without needing their choice forced.<br /><br />The final point about publicity is fairly serious. Considering there is a substantial budget for this, it would be sensible for large expenses to be approved by UEC. In the minutes of the UEC meeting from <a href="http://hullstudent.com/files/UEC_23sep08.doc">September 23rd</a>, there is this in the President's report:<br /><blockquote>"Have ordered the 'year of change' banner to go across the entrance to the Union. Apologies to all members of UEC for ordering this without approval and not consulting on the cost. Hope to have the banner up for Welcome Week."</blockquote>Helen apologised for the oversight, but it's still a significant expense and it has a message that was not approved by the UEC. It sets a dangerous precedent.<br /><br /><b>Draft Constitution - Part 1</b><br />The first issue in this part of the <a href="http://www.hullstudent.com/files/minisites/9885/draft_constitution_n04.pdf">constitution</a> is in point 2 ('The Name'). It states:<br /><blockquote>"The Association’s name is Hull University Union."</blockquote>Currently, the student union is an un-incorporated association, but under the new constitution it will be a registered charity. Surely it should read 'The charity's name is Hull University Union'.<br /><br />The next problem is in point 3 ('Objects of the student union'). These are included to tell you the union's reason for existing. They have to feature in the list of charitable objectives in the Charities Act. This is from the union's proposed constitution:<br /><blockquote>"The objects of the Students’ Union are: <br /><br />1.1. The purpose of Hull University Union is the advancement of Education of students at the University of Hull. <br />1.2. It will achieve this by: <br /><ul><li>1.2.1. Promoting the interests and welfare of students at the University of Hull during their course of study and representing, supporting and advising members. </li><li>1.2.2. Being the recognised representative channel between students and the University and any other external bodies.</li><li>1.2.3. Providing cultural, sporting and recreational activities, opportunities to volunteer in the community and forums for discussion and debate for the personal development of its members."</li></ul></blockquote>For an official document, this is incredibly poor layout and could easily be misinterpreted. According to that section, the union can advance the quality of education at the university by providing such things as sporting and cultural activities. That makes no sense. Sport is an object separate to education.<br /><br />In point 4 ('Application of Income and Property'), sub-clause 3 places restrictions on what money/remunaration can be given to members (for instance, no income or property of nthe charity can be given to a member) unless it's a reimbursement for a product or service. However, sub-clause 8 conflicts with that by stating that a trustee can receive a benefit not permitted in sub-clause 3 providing they declare interest, do not attend relevant meetings and do not vote.<br /><br /><b>Draft Constitution - part 2</b><br />In the section aout membership, it lists the various different types of membership for the student union:<br /><ul><li>Full members</li><li>Honorary Life members</li><li>Life members</li><li>Reciprocal members</li><li>Associate members</li><li>Temporary members</li></ul>It also provides detailed information about your rights as a full member. However, there's no part of the constitution that gives information about the other types of membership.<br /><br />The next point refers to Union Extraordinary General Meetings. The Board of Trustees, UEC or 100 full members can convene an EGM. Is 100 members enough peopleconsidering there are several thousand members in total? I can only assume that it's this number due to the apathy that exists amongst the members of the union. The problem is, this could lead to minority rule. A larger number is required, but nothing like e.g. 40%, because that is just ridiculous.<br /><br />In the point about the board of trustees, it states that trustees must keep minutes of meetings. Wouldn't it be better if an actual secretary did this and sent the minutes to the trustees afterwards? It would ensure consistency.<br /><br /><b>Ten committments</b><br />From the UEC meeting on the <a href="http://hullstudent.com/files/UEC_3jun08.doc">June 3rd</a> (i.e. last academic year when Ed Marsh was the President), the following committments were agreed and would form part of the new constitution:<br /><ol><li>Week 2, semester 2 council and open policy forum to be held in Scarborough</li><li>the removal of VP SC will be reviewed against bench marks after 2 years</li><li>all committee's must be run with representatives from both campus's, e.g. Women's, Societies and Media</li><li>Union Manager Scarborough to keep a record of Sabbatical Officer attendance in Scarborough, to be presented at Council in week 12</li><li>creation of Video Conferencing Facilities in both Unions</li><li>president to hold 2 open forums a semester in Scarborough</li><li>part Time officers to visit Scarborough twice a semester</li><li>to run a Scarborough Specific Marketing Campaign aimed at explaining that Scarborough students can run for cross campus positions from President to A.U Council rep on union council</li><li>to safeguard the recognition of Scarborough’s individuality by ring fencing its proportion of representation for 6 years</li><li>to ring fence the wages of the VP SC for 5 years, so if it is reintroduced by UEC the required funding will be available</li></ol>Under the consitution that is being put to referendum, Open Policy Forums no longer exist (despite it being implied that their existence is set in stone according to the UEC minutes from <a href="http://hullstudent.com/files/UEC_4Sep08(1).doc">September 4th</a>). Instead, there will be a one-per-term General meeting. There is no information about whether the committments relating to OPFs would be applied to this new meeting.<br /><br />There is also no follow-up information in the UEC minutes about whether point 2 will still be happening. The same applies to points about finance. Also, will any general meetings, Zone meeting, EGMs or AGMs take place in Scarborough? If this is to be explained in the standing orders, fair enough. However, standing orders should already be available for viewing on the governance review pages of hullstudent.com. They are governance documents and I presume new versions will be written.<br /><br /><b>Summary and Conclusion</b><br />The constitution that is being voted on contains sections that are poorly laid out and could be easily misinterpreted. The section about money for trustees contains a potential loophole and the publicity is highly visible, but has a message which almost forces a particular choice from the students. Parts of the publicity are not approved either and some key details have been missed off. <br /><br />All that, plus the fact that some pledges agreed last year have not been included in the new constitution. Unfortunately, the proposed documents cannot be altered now as it's part way through the voting period and it would mean voiding the votes that have already been cast.<br /><br />So, what do you think?<br /><br />Technorati tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Student+Unions">Student Unions</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Politics">Politics</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Governance">Governance</a>David Morrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04261790016339571004noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5546437397604926043.post-368000717668975242008-05-12T09:42:00.009+01:002008-05-12T13:40:38.254+01:00The HUU Governance ReviewThis year, after a <a href="http://www.hullstudent.com/news/index.php?page=article&news_id=9215">referendum at HUU</a>, a review of the current governance structures has been initiated. It's the second one in three years and it attempts to correct any flaws in the existing setup that was created to make the union more compliant with <a href="http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2006/ukpga_20060050_en_1">charity laws</a>. At the time of typing, the <a href="http://www.hullstudent.com/files/Extended_Governance_Green_Paper_FINAL.pdf">green paper</a> has been available for a few days and this post serves as a critical analysis of it.<br /><br /><b>Membership of the UEC</b><br />Currently, there are 10 members of the Union Executive Committee (7 full-time, three part-time). The part-time officers (UEOs) were a recent addition in the previous governance review. See the bottom of <a href="http://www.hullstudent.com/content/index.php?page=10651">this</a> page for more information. In the green paper, the following is proposed:<br /><ul><li>President</li><li>VP Community</li><li>VP Education</li><li>VP Sport</li><li>VP Welfare</li><li>Chair Scarborough Executive Committee (part-time)</li></ul>There would also be the non-exec positions of Campaigns & Democracy Officer, Chair ISA, Media Officer and Societies Officer. A clear benefit of this will be the fact that meetings will be quicker. However, I think there are some problems with it.<br /><br />You will notice that there is no Treasurer position on the committee, something which has been present in various forms over a number of years. The green paper states that the responsibility will be given to an external trustee. According to a source in the union, the reasons for this are:<br /><blockquote>"The charity is too complicated for anyone but an expert to understand the complicated finances"</blockquote>Another reason was that it's often the case that the UST doesn't have a finance-related degree, so if the Finance Manager isn't doing his job properly, he may not notice.<br /><br />During the training period for new sabbaticals, all members of the exec are given budget/finance training and there is also a presentation from <a href="http://www.cazenove.com/">Cazenove</a>, which is the investment group HUU work with. In the handover time the present UST gives the successor information and advice about this area. The General Manager also gives comprehensive information and resources relating to charities. All that, as well as the self-learning you're expected to do, should mean that the UST would be prepared to do the job. Providing that the UST is doing their job properly, they should also be able to notice if the Finance Manager is not doing their job properly. If there is some uncertainty, you could always talk to the GM about it.<br /><br />If the responsibility is given to an external trustee, it means there isn't anyone with that responsibility on the exec to give relevant reports. The external trustees aren't there all the time, so how can they do the job that the UST currently has?<br /><br /><b>Democracy</b><br />I can understand why Campaigns and Democracy is a part-time position in this proposed structure. The UST used to have responsibility for societies, but that's under the remit of VP Media & Volunteering at the moment. The new proposals also take away the treasurer responsibilities, so they obviously feel there's not enough left to justify a full-time position. However, it would mean there is no-one on the executive who is responsible for ensuring there's a democratic union. There's many elections to co-ordinate and the perennial task of battling against the dreaded student apathy. Whether this is a full-time position or not, I think it deserves a position on the exec.<br /><br /><b>Scarborough</b><br />I can forsee the decisions about Scarborough causing big problems. I'm not sure how many people would like the fact that the Scarborough exec chair would lose VP status and not be full-time. To some people, 'Chair' doesn't sound as important as 'Vice-President'. Scarborough is a big responsibility and previous VPs of that campus have shown that they have a large amount of work to do. Could a part-timer cope with that whilst doing their degree?<br /><br />This could be an attempt to strengthen the <i>Two campuses, one union</i> image though. If the rest of the exec spend more time at the Scarborough campus, the workload could be shared. However, there is also the issues affecting the Hull campus and the union as a whole to take care of - would this be too much for the other positions?<br /><br /><b>Education</b><br />The green paper states that the VP (Academic Representation) would be called VP Education. I think this is a good decision because many other unions across the country (for example, <a href="http://www.ussu.co.uk/sabbaticals">Surrey SU</a> and <a href="http://www.lufbra.net/DisplayPage.asp?pageid=1969">Loughborough SU</a>). Apart from this and the inclusion of the zones, there doesn't seem to be a great deal of changes.<br /><br />The exec might want to look at the committee lists to see if they're accurate. For example, I notice they made some valid changes to the VP Education committee list (which I recognise from Standing Order 3.001 that I rewrote), but there are still some inaccuracies (Graduate Research Committee is now called the Research Degrees Committee and there is no inclusion of the Library User Group, Free Electives Panel or Widening Participation Committee).<br /><br /><b>VP Community</b><br />The current role of Chair HUSSO is part-time, but the changes stated in this paper would mean that student community action would have a full-time officer again and more time can be given to making this valuable area of the union even better.<br /><br /><b>Meeting times</b><br /><blockquote>"The UEC shall meet in weeks 1, 4, 6, 8 and 10 of each semester. Meetings shall also occur outside of term-time as and when they are required"</blockquote>This has the potential to be good for the increased number of part-time officers as it reduces their workload slightly. However, fewer meetings could mean that the executive is less responsive in certain situations. Remember, if there isn't enough to justify a meeting at some point, then it could always be cancelled.<br /><br /><b>Zones</b><br />This is a similar model to the one that the <a href="http://www.nusonline.co.uk/">NUS</a> use. I can see some students thinking that this is easier to find who is responsible for certain areas, but I see it as too many layers. You would have the zone committees who each decide on a policy that will be submitted to an <a href="http://hullstudent.com/content/index.php?page=17421">Open Policy Forum</a>. The OPFs decide which policy ideas go to a referendum (this is noted at Union Council). Too many layers means too much bureaucracy and additional paperwork.<br /><br />The point about only one policy from each zone going to an OPF is a serious one. What if there is more than one vitally important policy that needs to be pushed through? It means one would have to be either abandoned or delayed until the next Zone committee. This could cause severe delays in the improvement of the union.<br /><br /><b>Open Policy Forums</b><br />The following is from the green paper:<br /><blockquote>"The OPF to Referenda process will run independently of the governance structures of HUU..."</blockquote>This is total nonsense. Governance policy can pass through that process. It's part of the union's democratic processes, so how is it independent?<br />This is from an <a href="http://www.commonsensealliance.org/2008/05/governance-green-paper.html">entry</a> on the CommonSenseAlliance blog:<br /><blockquote>"This year, Open Policy Forums were introduced - and haven't been the biggest hit in the Union... It is all down to the shortcomings of the Constitution - it only had about three lines about OPF's - so really, the UEC have done a good job with it. But this review cements it into the constitution."</blockquote>It's not all down to the constitution. Yes, it might have helped if there was more detail about them (maybe even a standing order), but in this situation it's up to the UEC to sort out suitable times and publicise them appropriately. Using Hullstudent.com and Facebook isn't necessarily enough because not everyone is a member of the relevant groups and not everyone visits hullstudent.com regularly. I saw no posters in the union stating that these were taking place.<br /><br /><b>Referenda and voting</b><br />This is from the green paper:<br /><blockquote>"All members of UEC except the Chair are entitled to vote at UEC. All votes of UEC shall be recorded and displayed in the minutes to allow UEC to be held to account by council. In the event of a tied vote the Chair of UEC shall have a casting vote. In this instance the casting vote must be justified for the minutes."</blockquote>Does this mean the number who voted for and against, or the specific names? It doesn't specify if it's 'secret ballot' and that needs to be clear (as is the case in other parts of the paper, e.g. the part about the election of zone chairs).<br /><br />Proportional representation is something which is mentioned repeatedly, but there is no mention of the specific version (if I remember correctly, it's <i>Alternative Vote</i>, the single seat election mechanism approved by the <a href="http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/">Electoral Reform Society</a>). The paper also doesn't mention the method of election for the multiple-seat Union Council. Just saying 'proportional representation' is far too generic because it allows people to constantly change the election method and there would be no consistency.<br /><br /><b>Other points</b><br />On page 13 of the green paper, it states that the UEC is "elected once annually", but what about the part-time officers? Does this mean that they can no-longer go for a full-time position and therefore a second year?<br /><br />The paper doesn't mention the AGM anywhere, which is one of the most important events in the union calendar. The publicity arrangements for this year's AGM were heavily criticised - so much more planning is needed.<br /><br />There is also no explicit mention of the fact that the trustee board can reject policy approved by the students.<br /><br />This is from the CommonSenseAlliance blog entry that was mentioned earlier:<br /><blockquote>"This year we've moved to change the standing orders so that only 10% of the students have to vote to change."</blockquote>I understand the reason for this. Votes in the past haven't had the required numbers to be legitimate. Going down to 10% means that more referendum results will become union policy. However, 10% isn't really representative of the whole student union membership. It needs to be a higher percentage (e.g. 20%).<br /><br />I feel this is too soon after the last governance review. There hasn't been enough time to fix the initial teething problems that you get with anything new. Some of the problems could be fixed by altering timings and publicity, without the need to alter the constitution. What would other people think of us if our governance is in a constant state of flux? I'm not against regular reviews - I just don't think they should be as regular as this.<br /><br /><b>Summary and Conclusion</b><br />This green paper definitely has some good points in it. I think the people who have contributed to this have put a lot of effort in and genuinely want to make the union better. However, I believe it needs significant changes before it goes to a vote as a white paper.<br /><br />So, what do you think?<br /><br />Technorati tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/HUU">HUU</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Student+Unions">Student Unions</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Politics">Politics</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Governance">Governance</a>David Morrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04261790016339571004noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5546437397604926043.post-57115296602422132602008-05-07T10:12:00.009+01:002008-05-07T13:02:19.732+01:00The '08 primaries - not many leftOn May 6th we had the primaries for <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#IN">Indiana</a> and <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#val=NC">North Carolina</a>. These states were incredibly important for Hillary as it was a chance to build up more late momentum (after her win in Pennsylvania). For Barack Obama, they were a chance to get an even bigger lead in the delegate count prior to the Democratic National Convention in June. As for John McCain, he was able to do more profiling and preparation for the general election portion of the election season.<br /><br />Here are the Democrat results for the primaries that took place on May 6th:<br /><br /><b>North Carolina</b><table><tr><td><b>Candidate</b> </td><td><b>Vote %age</b> </td><td><b>Delegates</b></td></tr><tr><td>Barack Obama </td><td>56 </td><td>58</td></tr><tr><td>Hillary Clinton </td><td>42 </td><td>42</td></tr></table><b>Indiana</b><br /><table><tr><td><b>Candidate</b> </td><td><b>Vote %age</b></td><td><b>Delegates</b></td></tr><tr><td>Hillary Clinton </td><td>51 </td><td>37</td></tr><tr><td>Barack Obama </td><td>49 </td><td>33</td></tr></table>If you just look at who won, you would think it's 1-1. However, it's a bit more complicated than that. Obama won North Carolina by a significant margin (in terms of votes and delegates) and only narrowly missed out on a win in Indiana (2% behind Clinton in votes and a difference of four between the two delegate counts). In reality, this was a good night for Obama because he takes 91 delegates and Clinton only takes 79.<br /><br />Naturally, Hillary tried to put a positive spin on the results by <a href="http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2008/05/06/1473215-excerpts-of-clintons-speech-tuesday">saying</a>:<br /><blockquote>"Not too long ago, my opponent made a prediction. He said I would probably win Pennsylvania, he would win North Carolina, and Indiana would be the tiebreaker.<br /><br />Well, tonight we've come from behind, we've broken the tie, and, thanks to you, it's full speed onto the White House."</blockquote>This is a clever thing to say because the voters who aren't necessarily interested in the finer details may think she's still got a really strong chance of winning and then go and vote for her. The truth is that she has a chance, but it's far from strong.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2008/05/06/1473142-excerpts-of-obamas-speech-after-nc-and-indiana-primaries">This</a> is what Obama had to say:<br /><blockquote>"You know, there are those who were saying that North Carolina would be a game changer in this election. But today what North Carolina decided is that the only game that needs changing is the one in Washington, D.C.<br /><br />I want to start by congratulating Senator Clinton on what appears to be her victory in the great state of Indiana."</blockquote>This was also a clever things to say. He is getting the people of North Carolina on his side and also pandering to the Hillary Clinton supporters. This will become increasingly important if he wins the nomination because he'll need all the votes he can get when he goes against McCain, who's had solid GOP backing for a while.<br /><br />So, how can Hillary win? Well, according to the <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/">CNN Election Center</a>, Obama has 1,836 delegates and superdelegates. Clinton has 1,681 (which means there is a difference of 155). In the remaining primaries, there are <a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PRIMARY_NEXT_UP?SITE=WVEC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT">217 delegates</a> available. This is one of the reasons why I said Clinton didn't have a strong chance earlier. She would have to win nearly all the remaining primaries by significant margins. <br /><br />Of course, it would be easier for her if some of the undecided superdelegates pledged their allegiance to her (<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080507/ap_on_el_pr/primary_rdp">270 available</a>), but they might just go with the popular vote if they haven't made their minds up yet.<br /><br />Michael Tomasky has an interesting point in <a href="http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/michael_tomasky/2008/04/the_numbers_game_1.html">this</a> article. Even though he believes Obama has the advantage, he thinks that Obama has had multiple opportunities to "close the deal" and hasn't done that so far. He wonders if that is an indicator of what may happen. <br /><br />Obama, like any candidate, can theoretically have a runaway victory providing there's enough positive publicity and decent early results. Obama certainly had that (e.g. Iowa). However, John McCain has proved that you can come from behind and finish strongly. Tomasky cites New Hampshire, California, Texas or Ohio and Pennsylvania as points where he could have won. I agree with Pennsylvania because of the significant number of delegates, but the others aren't good choices as they are too early on in the process (especially new Hampshire - that was the second primary/caucus).<br /><br /><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/07/AR2008050700065.html?hpid=topnews">This</a> article states that some of Clinton's aides are now saying it's nearly impossible. That is something very important. If the people in your campaign team are losing faith in your chances, what hope do you have?<br /><br />It gets even worse for Clinton because Obama seems to have <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/135832">survived the problematic issue</a> of Jeremiah Wright - his former pastor. That could have (quite easily) turned into a public relations nightmare, but it hasn't.<br /><br />So, what do you think?<br /><br />Technorati tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/USA">USA</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Elections">Elections</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Politics">Politics</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Barack+Obama">Barack Obama</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Hillary+Clinton">Hillary Clinton</a>,David Morrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04261790016339571004noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5546437397604926043.post-36539548515645462822008-04-25T10:14:00.009+01:002008-04-25T13:39:22.186+01:00The NUT industrial actionOn Thursday, April 24th, the <a href="http://www.teachers.org.uk/">National Union of Teachers</a> (NUT) members went on strike for one day, but there is the possibility of further action in the future. The reason for the strike was poor pay and conditions, however I think that this is a dubious claim and the type of action was the wrong one.<br /><br />The following is a statement from the NUT website:<br /><blockquote>"Thousands of members turned out to support this day of action. It shows the NUT made the right decision to call upon its members to strike. Erosion of teachers’ pay is now firmly on the public agenda as a result. We have highlighted the case for pay which at least keeps up with the rate of inflation as measured by RPI."</blockquote>So, the main point is that they feel they are not being paid enough for the work that they do. I will agree that teachers do an absurdly large amount of work and can get very stressed as a result. However, I do think they get decent wages. In <a href="http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/docbank/index.cfm?id=10995">this</a> document, the following pay scales are shown:<br /><table><tr><td><b>Level</b> </td><td><b>E & W</b> </td><td><b>I. Ldn</b> </td><td><b>O. Ldn</b> </td><td><b>Fringe</b> </td></tr><tr><td>M1 </td><td>£20,133 </td><td>£24,168 </td><td>£23,118 </td><td>£21,102 </td></tr><tr><td>M2 </td><td>£21,726 </td><td>£25,548 </td><td>£25,548 </td><td>£22,692 </td></tr><tr><td>M3 </td><td>£23,472 </td><td>£27,327 </td><td>£26,247 </td><td>£24,438 </td></tr><tr><td>M4 </td><td>£25,278 </td><td>£29,328 </td><td>£28,053 </td><td>£26,250 </td></tr><tr><td>M5 </td><td>£27,270 </td><td>£31,584 </td><td>£30,432 </td><td>£28,239 </td></tr><tr><td>M6 </td><td>£29,427 </td><td>£33,936 </td><td>£32,751 </td><td>£30,393 </td></tr></table><b>N.B.:</b> E&W = England and Wales, I. Ldn = Inner London, O. Ldn = Outer London<br /><br />That doesn't seem too bad, even on the bottom end of the scale. It means that a relatively inexperienced teacher gets more than I do in a year. However, that is an unfair comparison as their work goes beyond 9-5. I'll compare the above rates of pay with the <a href="http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/details/Default.aspx?Id=4">wages in nursing</a> - another high pressure job with long hours:<br /><table><tr><td><b>Level</b> </td><td><b>Min.(£)</b> </td><td><b>Max.(£)</b> </td></tr><tr><td>Band 1 </td><td>12,182 </td><td>13,253 </td></tr><tr><td>Band 2 </td><td>12,577 </td><td>15,523 </td></tr><tr><td>Band 3 </td><td>14,437 </td><td>17,257 </td></tr><tr><td>Band 4 </td><td>16,853 </td><td>20,261 </td></tr><tr><td>Band 5 </td><td>19,683 </td><td>25,424 </td></tr><tr><td>Band 6 </td><td>23,458 </td><td>31,779 </td></tr><tr><td>Band 7 </td><td>28,313 </td><td>37,326 </td></tr><tr><td>Band 8A </td><td>36,112 </td><td>43,335 </td></tr><tr><td>Band 8B </td><td>42,064 </td><td>52,002 </td></tr><tr><td>Band 8C </td><td>50,616 </td><td>62,402 </td></tr><tr><td>Band 8D </td><td>60,669 </td><td>75,114 </td></tr><tr><td>Band 9 </td><td>71,646 </td><td>90,607 </td></tr></table>According to the NHS payscales, a teacher at the M1 level in England and Wales gets paid more than:<br /><ul><li>Clinical support workers (both nursing and community)</li><li>Clinical support workers - higher level (nursing, community and mental health)</li><li>Maternity care assistants</li><li>Nurse associate practitioners (acute, community and mental health)</li><li>Nursery nurse (community)</li><li>Midwife (entry level)</li></ul>A more experienced, M6 level teacher gets more than those plus most non-management nurses. I should point out that there's a scale of pay for teachers above the one that I have shown where they get paid more and advanced skill teachers can get over £30, 000. These numbers make me think that teacers aren't the ones who are struggling.<br /><br /><b>Support for the strike</b><br />Despite this, there are groups who support the strike. <a href="http://www.ucu.org.uk/">The University and Colleges Union</a> (UCU) and the <a href="http://www.nusonline.co.uk">National Union of Students</a> (NUS) recently did demonstrations that called for teachers to get better pay.<br /><br /><img src="http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/8513/strikeactionxw4.jpg" /><br /><font size="1"><i>Photo originally taken by Dave Lewis and can be found <a href="http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=2491235&id=284200350#pid=2503417">here</a>.</i></font><br /><br /><b>Finances</b><br />In the Independent, <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/schools-out-for-two-million-children-as-teachers-strike-815407.html">there were quotes</a> from a few supporters and they were mainly people who'd recently graduated from university and were still saddled with debt:<br /><br /><i>Carrie-Ann Taylor earns £25,000 a year and is paying back her student loan at a rate of £1,000 per month</i>:<br /><blockquote>"That's half my income gone. I'm getting a 2.45 per cent pay award but inflation is at about 4.5 per cent. Even as an English teacher I can see that the maths doesn't work."</blockquote><i>Catherine Tooley survived on £3,000 as a student and is paying back her loan with a rate of 4.8% interest</i>:<br /><blockquote>""Only half that as a pay rise is a bit of an insult," she said. "I have to spend part of the summer holiday working at another job to pay back this debt I got in order to be a teacher."</blockquote>I have to agree that the situations described above are tough ones. When I was studying for my degree I often heard stories of people struggling due to lack of funds. For some of them that was the case even if they had a proper budget and didn't spend their money too quickly. However, paying back their student loans won't be as difficult as it is for other people.<br /><br /><b>Other teaching unions and the government</b><br />It seems the NUT are the only union that want strike action (it's important to note that even though the UCU want better pay for teachers, their members are not on strike). The <a href="http://www.atl.org.uk/">Association of Teachers and Lecturers</a> strongly advise their members to not show support as they say <a href="http://www.atl.org.uk/atl_en/news/strike_2008/default.asp">the action is unlawful</a>. The <a href="http://www.nasuwt.org.uk/">NASUWT</a> agree with the <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKL2382344720080424">pay offer</a> and have no plans to strike. According to their website, when other teaching unions go on strike, it is <a href="http://www.nasuwt.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=75779">unlawful</a> for any NASUWT member to join them.<br /><br />According to <a href="http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hhdQToAKixtNibE_fTWK9NBHCSUwD908KMGO2">this</a> article, all of the main political parties condemn the strike aswell. With this lack of support from a number of major bodies, their chances of getting what they want have to have been reduced.<br /><br /><b>What about the children?</b><br /><ul><li>In Liverpool, 135 schools were either closed or had to turn some pupils away. Council officials had predicted 67.</li><li>In Birmingham, predictions were that 75 schools would be affected; 164 closed and 84 turned some pupils away.</li><li>Camden, Nottinghamshire, Worcestershire, Warwick, Middlesbrough, Oxfordshire, Doncaster and Bristol all reported more schools affected by the strike.</li><li>In Wales, half of schools were shut or partially shut.</li></ul>Those stats were in <a href="http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2276232,00.html">this</a> article. The children who go to the schools in all of those areas had their education interrupted. It might only have been for a day, but that could still cause problems as it's e.g. harder to get all the required knowledge across to the pupils/students in the time that they have (that will be even more apparent if there is more strike action).<br /><br />This also affects working parents. They will have to rush to find necessary childcare for the time that would normally be taken up by school. They might even have to take a day off, which will disrupt their working routines too.<br /><br /><b>Summary and Conclusion</b><br />As I have alreay mentioned, teachers have an incredibly stressful job. The media piles pressure on the curriculum that they teach and they can frequently get abuse from some of the pupils/students. They may even get criticised by parents at times. However, they do get decent pay (especially when comparing it to some people in the medical profession) and the strike action is unlawful. Any future action has the potential to harm the progress of many pupils/students. In short, I didn't support the action that took place yesterday and I won't support further action from the NUT either.<br /><br />So, what do you think?<br /><br />Technorati tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/NUT">NUT</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Strike">Strike</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Teachers">Teachers</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Employment">Employment</a>David Morrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04261790016339571004noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5546437397604926043.post-42091170308826494092008-04-23T11:37:00.004+01:002008-04-23T13:06:50.657+01:00Pennsylvania Wars: Clinton Strikes Back<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2296/2434765398_14bb3cfe80.jpg" /><br /><font size="1"><i>Photo taken by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/hillaryclinton/">Barbara Kinney</a></i></font><br /><br />Before the voting day in Pennsylvania, many people felt that Obama would lose in that state. He was behind in the polls and the citizens are people who fall into the categories that typically vote for Clinton. However, I'm always skeptical about polls - especially after the surprise in Iowa earlier on this year.<br /><br />Anyway, as the <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#PA">results</a> show, the polls were correct:<br /><table><tr><td><b>Candidate</b></td><td><b>Vote %age</b></td><td><b>Delegates</b></td></tr><tr><td>Hillary Clinton</td><td>55</td><td>52</td></tr><tr><td>Barack Obama</td><td>45</td><td>46</td></tr></table>This is undoubtedly a good result for her as it's a big state with plenty of delegates and it will give her a certain amount of momentum. However, it's not as big a margin as everyone thinks. <br /><br />It seems that even after all this time, the <a href="http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2008/04/23/1447376-clintons-win-still-leaves-her-the-underdog">media still doesn't undertand</a> how the election process works in the US. They are all reporting the "big" 10% gap and forgetting that the vote percentage counts for absolutely nothing. The important statistic is the relatively small difference between the two in terms of delegates (six). That doesn't prove there's a huge swing towards Hillary (which is why I said 'a <i>certain</i> amount of momentum').<br /><br />This is what Hillary <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/23/us.primary.intl/index.html?eref=rss_world">had to say</a> after the results were announced:<br /><blockquote>"You know, some people counted me out and said to drop out. But the American people don't quit, and they deserve a president who doesn't quit, either"</blockquote>It's true - she hasn't quit. It would have been easy to do that earlier on because Obama continually won primaries and got to the point where he went past her delegate count. However, she realises that there is still time to overtake him because there are 9 Democrat primaries/caucuses and numerous delegates left before the the party's convention.<br /><br />As a side note, it seems that Mike Gravel <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/mike.gravel.html">dropped out</a> a few weeks ago. It shows how effective his campaign was when the media barely report it. I was thinking that he decided to remain in the race because he wanted to do some profiling before a run as an independent. However, due to the lack of media coverage I doubt that many people will know about him when the general election starts.<br /><br />So, what about John McCain? I haven't heard much from this guy lately. It's possible that he could be pleased that the Democrat race is still going on. It means that there is still indecisiveness among the party and that could give him an advantage. It also means he has a bit more time to prepare his general election campaign. However, the continuing Democrat contest gives more media coverage to that party. It means that the voting population know more about the candidates and what they stand for. To stop this from being a problem, I think McCain needs to start doing a lot more.<br /><br />According to the polls, the presumptive GOP nominee is way behind Obama and Clinton. As an example, here are the <a href="http://thecurrent.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/mccain-fundraising.php">fundraising totals</a> for <b>March</b>:<br /><table><tr><td><b>Candidate</b></td><td><b>Money ($)</b></td></tr><tr><td>Barack Obama</td><td>40m</td></tr><tr><td>Hillary Clinton</td><td>20m</td></tr><tr><td>John McCain</td><td>15m</td></tr></table>It's amazing that Obama is able to raise twice as much as Hillary and 25m more than McCain in just one month. It'll give him a great advantage interms of creating publicity if he becomes his party's candidate.<br /><br />It's interesting that, despite all that Obama momentum and the total dominance of McCain on the Republican side, there are still some sections of the media that have a bias towards Clinton. Take <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/23/wuspols623.xml">this</a> article in the Telegraph as an example. All it mentions is Hillary. It's almost as if nobody else was running. I wonder if this is still the case on some of the US media networks aswell.<br /><br />Another thing that hasn't changed is the ability of each candidate to use tired clichés. On Monday's episode of WWE RAW, <a href="http://www.wwe.com/shows/raw/articles/6871934/6917836">each candidate made a short speech</a> about why they should be the President. Each speech contained a healthy dose of clichés that were (presumably) included so that they would appear to be in touch with the people that they are talking to. There were classics such as "the election is like the King of the Ring" and "Can you smell what Barack is cookin'?". Oh dear. I'm sorry, but if they wanted to appear 'in touch', they should have avoided those and respected the intelligence of the fans by just talking about policies.<br /><br />Anyway, the race to the Whitehouse carries on and the conventions to decide the candidates are getting closer (I say that because McCain is only presumptive and, technically, the delegates still have to cast their votes). There will be many people who will be glad when this lengthy process is over, but I have found it both interesting and enlightening.<br /><br />So, what do you think?<br /><br />Technorati tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/USA">USA</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Election">Election</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Poltics">Politics</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Hillary+Clinton">Hillary Clinton</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Barack+Obama">Barack Obama</a>David Morrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04261790016339571004noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5546437397604926043.post-29143408607957697472008-04-15T13:39:00.004+01:002008-04-15T15:44:48.280+01:00Zimbabwe - the current situationSince <a href="http://lifedownloaded.blogspot.com/2008/04/robert-mugabes-zimbabwe.html">my last post about the problems in Zimbabwe</a>, there has been even more developments - most of them are worrying. There has been increasing pressure on the <a href="http://www.eisa.org.za/WEP/zimzec.htm">Zimbabwe Electoral Commission</a> and even more comment from the international community as well as further involvement from South Africa.<br /><br /><b>The ZEC and the results</b><br />The results of the presidential part of the Zimbabwean elections have not been announced yet and the Movement for Democratic Change (the opposition party led by Morgan Tsvangirai) has gone through the courts to get this information released.<br /><br />The decision in the court case was <a href="http://www.herald.co.zw/inside.aspx?sectid=33240&cat=1">recently revealed</a> in the state-owned newspaper, <i><a href="http://www.herald.co.zw/">The Herald</a></i>:<br /><blockquote>"HIGH Court judge Justice Tendayi Uchena yesterday dismissed with costs an application by MDC-T seeking an order compelling the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission to announce results of the presidential election"</blockquote>This can only be seen as an unfortunate result for the MDC. Later on in that article, it's reported that a spokesman for the ZEC mentioned that it was up to them when the results should be released. That same spokesman also said that the "integrity" of the ZEC should not be questioned and that "trying to interfere with the independence of ZEC would create problems in future".<br /><br /><b>The Constitution</b><br />It's interesting that he used the word <i>independence</i> in his statement. Let's examine that. The following is from the <a href="http://www.kubatana.net/docs/legisl/constitution_zim_070201.pdf">Constitution of Zimbabwe</a>, which was created in the year that Mugabe took power:<br /><blockquote>"<b>1.</b> There shall be a commission to be known as the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission which shall consist of:<blockquote><b>a.</b> a chairman who shall be a judge of the High Court or the Supreme Court or a person qualified to be appointed as a judge of the High Court or the Supreme Court appointed by the President after consultation with the Judicial Service Commission<br /><br /><b>b.</b> six other members, at least three of whom shall be women, appointed by the President from a list of nine nominees submitted by the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders.</blockquote><b>2.</b> If the appointment of a chairman of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission is not consistent with any recommendation of the Judicial Service Commission in terms of subsection (1)(a), the President shall cause Parliament to be informed as soon as practicable."</blockquote>This basically states that the chairman and all other members of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission are appointed by the President (Mugabe). It also states that he must consult with the judicial branch when appointing the chair, but (according to section 84 of the constitution), Mugabe also selects the judges. These facts mean that the ZEC can't possibly be independent. If you read the full article in the state-owned <i>The Herald</i>, you'll notice that this issue isn't raised - Mugabe wouldn't want the population knowing all the facts.<br /><br /><b>Thabo Mbeki and the SADC</b><br />The <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/sadc.html">Southern African Development Community</a> has enlisted the <a href="http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/mbeki/">South African President, Thabo Mbeki,</a> as the person who will mediate with them and Zimbabwe. At the moment, Mbeki feels that there is <a href="http://www.africasia.com/services/news/newsitem.php?area=africa&item=080415090036.2xhgob38.php">no crisis in that country</a>:<br /><blockquote>"There is no crisis in Zimbabwe....The body authorised to release the results is the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission, let's wait for them to announce the results,"</blockquote>What the South African leader fails to understand is that even though the ZEC are the group that release the results, they are not independent. Theoretically, Mugabe could influence them so that they delay the announcment for several months.<br /><br />Another indication that Mbeki is out of touch his own party, the ANC, disagreeing with him:<br /><blockquote>"The ANC regards the (Zimbabwe) ruling party ZANU-PF as an ally. However it is concerned with the state of crisis that Zimbabwe is in and perceives this as negative for the entire SADC region"</blockquote>Oh dear - was he really the right choice for mediation and diplomatic duties in this situation?<br /><br /><b>A strike</b><br />The MDC stated that there should be a <a href="http://africa.reuters.com/top/news/usnBAN523715.html">general strike</a> (in the form of a 'stay-in'). They felt that it would force the ZEC into releasing the results. A lot of citizens ignored this as they simply cannot afford a strike and the unemployment rate is 80%, so people have questioned whether it would make a difference. I feel that any strike at this stage would be a bad move for the MDC. Doing nothing would give Mugabe more time and it's unlikely that the ZEC would be influenced anyway.<br /><br /><b>Violence</b><br />The following is from <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/04/15/zimbabwe.election/?iref=mpstoryview">this</a> article:<br /><blockquote>"Government spokesman Bright Matonga said the only violence in Zimbabwe was by the opposition MDC party, which he said had "sent their youth to burn down property."</blockquote>This was said in response to the MDC's accusations of intimidation and suggestion that Mugabe uses youth militias. What Zanu-PF (the current ruling party) fail to point out is that their supporters have been clearly violent and in one <i>reported</i> case, they have even <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/14/wzim414.xml">killed an MDC supporter</a>. The Zimbabwe police claim that the violence <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/15/wzim115.xml">isn't political</a>, but that is ridiculous. However, I guess the police were forced to say that as they are run by the government.<br /><br /><b>David Miliband and the UN Charter</b><br />The UK's Foreign Secretary recently stated that "The international community, given the consequences of the situation there, has a responsibility also to engage with the issues". I'm pleased to see that this stance has been adopted. Non-military action by external countries is the way forward in this situation. In my previous blog post I stated that no country has the right to intervene by using force.<br /><br />Morgan Tsvangirai recently <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/world/africa/07zimbabwe.html?em&ex=1207713600&en=51eb39e4d84999fa&ei=5087%0A">called for the intervention</a> of the UN and other countries, but it's important to remember that the UN or it's members cannot take military action as it's only a domestic issue. If Mugabe is re-elected, it would not e.g. greatly affect the economic status of all the other nations. If military action was taken right now, the Charter of the United Nations would be broken (in several places).<br /><br />For instance, <a href="http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter1.htm">point 1 of Article 1</a> states that the UN should maintain international peace and security. Starting a war would be the exact opposite of that (anyone remember Iraq?). Point 4 of Article 2 states that:<br /><blockquote>"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state"</blockquote>Only using military force in international situations is also mentioned in articles <a href="http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm">41 and 42</a>.<br /><br /><b>Conclusion and Summary</b><br />The biased Zibabwe Electoral Commission is delaying the results and isn't stating when they will be released. The result of a court case means that there is no progress. The MDC is (worryingly) making some questionable decisions such as proposing a strike, but fortunately nothing happened with that. The international community can do nothing but continue to impose sanctions. Alongside that, it seems that violence is increasing dramatically and it only improves the chances of Mugabe being re-elected. However, as he has lost the parliamentary election, how much power would he have?<br /><br />So, what do you think?<br /><br />Technorati tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Zimbabwe">Zimbabwe</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Robert+Mugabe">Robert Mugabe</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Election">Election</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Government">Government</a>David Morrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04261790016339571004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5546437397604926043.post-57308520896395357842008-04-08T14:16:00.006+01:002008-04-08T16:39:01.181+01:00Ofcom's social networking reportThere have been many developments in social networks recently. It all started with the likes of <a href="http://www.friendster.com">Friendster</a> and <a href="http://www.friendsreunited.co.uk">Friends Reunited</a>. Now we have <a href="http://www.facebook.com">Facebook</a> and many more people hoping to mimic or eclipse the success of Facebook's creator, <a href="http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?execbios">Mark Zuckerberg</a>. The positives and negatives of this variety of website were looked at in Ofcom's recent report called <i><a href="http://www.ofcom.org.uk/advice/media_literacy/medlitpub/medlitpubrss/socialnetworking/report.pdf">Social Networking: A quantitative and qualitative research report into attitudes, behaviours and use</a></i>. This blog post is an analysis of that report.<br /><br /><b>What were the objectives?</b><br /><ul><li>to set social networking sites in the wider media literacy, online and communications context</li><li>to profile the use of sites</li><li>to understand people’s use of sites</li><li>to investigate concerns about privacy and safety</li></ul>Looking at these makes me think that Ofcom didn't make any large assumptions before conducting the research. They will also be looking into one of the most important issues that has been talked about recently - security, which makes the report relevant. One concern I do have is that they are using <a href="http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=4&n=5">significance testing</a>. There is an argument against this as it can require a lot of benefit for very little benefit. You could quite easily create this report and ignore statistical signifcance.<br /><br /><b>Research methodologies</b><br />This is an area of the report where I have major concerns. It is absolutely vital to get the methodology right. If you don't, there's a risk of the data being misinterpreted and it being unrepresentative. This social networking report makes use of multiple methodologies.<br /><br />The work that was done especially for this report has a sample size that is far too small (52). That means that the outcomes are likely to be unrepresentative of the UK's opinion. There is also an unfair weighting given to the users of social networks (39 of of that 52 are users). It would be much better if the ratio was 1:1. People who have used social networks before also had to complete a small task beforehand. We have no idea of what that task was, or if there was a time limit. Another thing is that we don't know if the experience of those who are users is equal. Finally, the observation is done using pairs, groups of three and groups of four. I see no point in having anything other than the pairs.<br /><br />For complete descriptions of the methodologies in the other sources, look at Annex 1 of the report. Here are some of the problems I have with those sources:<br /><ul><li>In the report <i>Ofcom Media Literacy Adult Audit research</i>, they class adults as 16+, which is completely wrong of courses and means that an inappropriate group of people are used in the results. The sample size is bigger (2905), but it's not necessarily representative. There is also no specifics of the weightings used on the old census data and we don't know the diversity of the sample.</li><li>In the <i>Ofcom Communications Tracking Survey</i>, adults are incorrectly defined as 15+ and we don't know the specific of the weighting system that they state is used to make the data representative.</li><li>The <i>Ofcom Young People and Media Tracking Survey</i> is used, but we aren't told about the weighting and data is used from 2001 (the census).</li><li>Third party research is also used and I don't know about the methdologoies used there. I wonder if they're up to standard!</li></ul><b>Engaging with social networks</b><br />This section looks at internet usage and rules imposed regarding the use of social networking. It therefore means that the reader will have a better idea about how popular social networking is at what it's limits are.<br /><br />An early part of this section uses <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/aug/07/digitalmedia.facebook1">this</a> article as a reference. The article is about <a href="http://www.tfl.gov.uk/">Trasport for London</a> stopping it's employees from using Facebook.<br /><blockquote>"UK users spend an average three hours 11 minutes on the site each month, according to data from web monitoring firm comScore, slightly lower than the global average of three hours 41 minutes."</blockquote>This might be true, but what if the employees complete their work to the required standard, despite their usage of the site. 11 minutes isn't a lot. Also, how much of that 11 minutes of use was during work hours? You also have to remember that this decision was based on "concerns", rather than 'evidence'.<br /><br />It's interesting that the people who noted this used F.W. Taylor's <a href="http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/taylor/principles/ch01.htm">Scientific Management</a> model. That's the one that states money is the most important thing and determines whether an employee works hard. Elton Mayo performed the more recent <a href="http://www.revision-notes.co.uk/revision/795.html">Hawthorne Studies</a> and found it's not necessarily the most important factor. He found that a pleasant work environment that has the occasional break is important to. Maslow discovered (using his <a href="http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/maslow.html">hierarchy of needs</a> research) that both structure and socialising are crucial. Surely these two studies prove that employees shouldn't be banned from using social networks and providing that they don't use them 24 hours a day, that break from work could actally improve overall performance.<br /><br />Other rules are generally imposed on children as some parents feel that too much internet usage can have negative effects. Section 4.6 of the report states that rules include not being allowed to meet someone in person after you have befriended them online and revealing personal details. I can understand the one about befriending people online though because some children may not realise that some of those people could be paedophiles.<br /><br /><b>Attitudes and usage of social networks</b><br />Sections 5 and 6 concentrate on these areas. Section 5 focuses on the types of people who use social networks and the reasone why some sections of the public don't use them. Apparently, the categories that the users tend to fall into include "Alpha socialisers" (those who like making new friends at every opportunity), "Attention seekers", "Followers", "Faithfuls" (those use use the sites to strengthen existing relationships) and "Functionals" (these are the people who use a site for a specific purpose, such as finding out information about a potential employee, or looking at upcoming events for a local band).<br /><br />The report states that those who don't use social networks are people who think they're a "waste of time", think there are too many security issues or are people who don't have enough IT expertise. This information is both interesting and useful.<br /><br />The report mentions that these benefits include being "a tool to build confidence", "an easy way to link up with old friends" and being "an efficient way to manage existing relationships". It also points out some negatives though. For instance:<br /><blockquote>"Some younger respondents who were committed users of these sites reported using them ‘to get back at people they had fallen out with’, by posting rude or abusive message on their sites or even going so far as to set up a fake site in the person’s name and posting obscene messages about them."</blockquote>I don't think that section 6 tells society anything new at all - it simply confirms what we already know.<br /><br /><b>Privacy and safety</b><br />Section 7.3 of the report lists the following risks:<br /><ul><li>Leaving the privacy settings ‘open’ as default</li><li>Giving out personal information</li><li>Posting personal photographs</li><li>Becoming online friends with people they did not know</li><li>Meeting people they didn’t know</li></ul>The report (correctly) states that these problems often arise due to a lack of expertise, lack of reasoned judgement or a feeling of invincibility (particularly relevant with young children and teenagers). It is also true that registration procedures for some websites are totally ineffective. For instance, without an image of a randomised code for the user to enter during the signup process, it easy easy for 'bots' to enter a site. It is also easy to work out what birth dates would mean you are above the minimum age to use a social network.<br /><br />However, not everything is the fault of the social network. Many make great efforts to provide help systems, technical support and customisable privacy settings. It's up to the users to take notice of these before they consider using a service - it's common sense.<br /><br /><b>Conclusion</b><br />This report gives the reader plenty of interesting information in a well structured document. There are plenty of fairly useful facts and statistics, but I don't think it tells us many new things (e.g. we already know there are privacy concerns). I am also really worried that they haven't taken care with the research methodologies, which risks making a lot of the work useless.<br /><br />So, what do you think?<br /><br />Technorati tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Social+Networking">Social Networking</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Ofcom">Ofcom</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Internet">Internet</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Privacy">Privacy</a>David Morrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04261790016339571004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5546437397604926043.post-54085499014106712312008-04-03T13:38:00.005+01:002008-04-03T16:20:21.650+01:00Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe1980 will always be perceived as an important year in the history of Zimbabwe. It was the year the <a href="http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567620/robert_mugabe.html">Robert Mugabe</a> became Prime Minister of the country. He stayed in that position until 1987. After that he was appointed President and discontinued the role of Prime Minister. It meant he had increased powers and control over the country. Prior to 1980, he was the Secretary General to parties that were supressed due to their opposition to white rule. His current part is the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF).<br /><br />Despite is involvement in the end of white majority rule in that country, he has made several decisions which have had catastrophic effects. To say he is reviled by the international community is an understatement. Over the past 28 years, the economy has spiralled out of control, healthcare is poor and foreign-relations are non-existant.<br /><br /><b>The economy</b><br />In <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/02/01/zimbabwe.inflation.ap/index.html">this</a> article, it's reported that the current rate of inflation is 24,000%. The country has also recently introduced a <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7195569.stm">$10m bank note</a>. As an example of the price change of products, the current retail price of the state-owned Herald newspaper is $3m. That is a 200,000% more than it's price in January 2007. A further example is the value of basic food ingredients. On the TV news yesterday I noticed that a simple bag of flour was $12.5m. These statistics mean that citizens find it difficult to get information about what is going on and also starve becasue they cannot afford the basics for meals. So, Mugabe wanted an end to the white majority rule and he's now forgotten about the people he fought for in the first place.<br /><br /><b>International relations</b><br />I don't believe that nations such as the United States have any right to intervene in the running of the country, regardless of whether they oppose Mugabe. However, this doesn't mean they cannot apply sanctions. In <a href="http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/programs/zimbabwe/zimb.pdf">this</a> document, there are details about restrictions, which include the following:<br /><blockquote>"The new Executive Order prohibits U.S. persons, wherever located, or anyone in the United States from engaging in any transactions with any person, entity or organization found to: 1.) be undermining democratic institutions and processes in Zimbabwe; 2.) have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support to these entities; 3.) be or have been an immediate family member of a sanctions target; or 4.) be owned, controlled or acting on behalf of a sanctions target."</blockquote>This means that a US citizen cannot conduct any business with the current Zimbabwean government or it's supporters. The European Union has also <a href="http://www.actsa.org/Pages/Page.php?pID=1083&title=EU%20Sanctions%20Campaign%20-%20ACT%20NOW!">implemented sanctions</a> and these include travel to Zimbabwean government members being banned from travelling to EU countries and European-based assets being frozen. The EU ruling was introduced in 2002, but it has already been broken as Mugabe was allowed to attend an EU-Africa summit last year. At that event he <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/10/wmugabe110.xml">signed a pledge</a> which meant he would introduce democracy. Allowing him to attend that summit means the strength of the sanctions has been weakened and that 'pledge' doesn't necessarily mean he'd do anything.<br /><br /><b>Honours and awards</b><br />This has proven to be a highly controversial subject. In June 2007, The Times reported that Mugabe had just been <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article1896047.ece">stripped of an honorary degree</a> that had been awarded to him by the University of Edinburgh in 1984. That was the time that a British university has done that. The University of Massechusetts has also given him an honrary degree in the past and there <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/04/06/umass_students_aim_to_revoke_honorary_degree_for_mugabe/">was a large camapign</a> to revoke that award aswell. <br /><br />In March 2007, Andrew Robathan MP called for Mugabe's Order of the Bath medal <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=443562&in_page_id=1811&ct=5">to be revoked</a>. However, Margaret Beckett (the Foreign Secretary at the time) felt that there were more important matters to deal with. While it's true that the oppression of the Zimbabwean people takes priority, I do not believe that Robert Mugabe should have any awards such as those that I have mentioned. They are for people who have achieved great things, not for people who destroy countries and intimidate people.<br /><br /><b>The opposition</b><br />For many years, the largest opposition body has been the <a href="http://www.mdc.co.zw/">Movement for Democratic Change</a> (MDC), which is lead by <a href="http://www.whoswhosa.co.za/Pages/profilefull.aspx?IndID=3575">Morgan Tsvangirai</a>. His period as leader of that party hasn't been easy. In 2003, <a href="http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2003/06/03/2003053775">he was arrested</a> for organising anti-government protests. This was a move to silence both competition and free speech - both would mean that his control over the country would have been weakened. In 2004, the Guardian reported that Tsvangirai had been accused of plotting to assassinate Mugabe, but he was later found to be <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/oct/15/zimbabwe">not guilty</a>. If it was true, it would have meant that Tsvangirai had gone down to Mugabe's level - that would have been terrible.<br /><br /><b>Elections</b><br />In Zimbabwe, there are separate elections for the House of Assembly (210 seats), the Senate (93 seats) and the role of President. Both the lower (Assembly) and upper (Senate) houses operate on <a href="http://www.eisa.org.za/WEP/zim4.htm">plurality voting systems</a> (First Past The Post) and the election for President is uses Universal Adult Franchise, which basically means you can vote if you're an adult. If none of the presidential candidates receives 50% of the vote, there is a runoff between those with the most votes.<br /><br />At the time of typing, Mugabe's Zanu-PF has lost the elections for the houses. The full results can be found <a href="http://www.eisa.org.za/WEP/zim2008results1.htm">here</a>. Tsvangirai's MDC won with 99 seats, compared to Zanu-PF's 97.<br /><br />As for the Presidential election, one of two things could happen. Either Mugabe will step down and Tsvangirai would be elected, or there would be a <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120723229833786465.html?mod=googlenews_wsj">runoff</a> as neither man as achieved the required 50% (despite the <a href="http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080403/31793_Zimbabwe_MDC_Claims_Victory%3B_Still_No_Official_Results.htm">MDC saying otherwise</a>). This could potentially take a long time and would give Mugabe an opportunity to use coercion to get people to vote for him.<br /><br /><b>Conclusion</b><br />Robert Mugabe has destroyed the quality of life for the people of Zimbabwe, despite being involved in the ending of white majority rule. International relations are hostile and he uses intimidation to retain control. In short, he has to go. Morgan Tsvangirai would have to keep his promises though. Without that, sanctions would not be lifted and the country would go nowhere.<br /><br />So, what do you think?<br /><br />Technorati tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Zimbabwe">Zimbabwe</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Robert+Mugabe">Robert Mugabe</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Election">Election</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Government">Government</a>David Morrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04261790016339571004noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5546437397604926043.post-63430869498234994912008-03-24T16:12:00.004+00:002008-03-24T18:34:10.880+00:00The Single Transferable Vote systemIn the publication <a href="http://www.cix.co.uk/~rosenstiel/stvrules/index.htm"><i>How to conduct an election by the Single Transferable Vote</i></a>, the following objectives for a valid election are listed:<br /><ul><li>To discover the wishes of the electorate</li><li>To ensure that as many voters as possible have an equal effect on the outcome</li><li>To ensure as many people as possible have their choice of elected representatives</li><li>To make sure that the outcome of the election is proportional to views of the nation</li></ul>The publication goes on to say that multple voting systems fulfil these criteria, which is perfectly true.It is also true that multiple methods don't meet all those objectives. For instance, the United States use the <a href="http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html">Electoral College</a>, which discovers the wishes of the electorate (the 'popular vote'), but not everyone has an equal say in the result as delegates decide who gets into the Whitehouse and there are also different types of delegates.<br /><br />The authors of the publication believe that the <i>Single Transferable Vote</i> (STV) method achieves all the above objectives with "economy, efficiency and certainty". So, how does STV work? Basically, you have a list of candidates and you put them in your preferred order. In the first round of counting, the person who had the least '1's gets knocked out and votes for them get transferred. People who were the second choice get those votes added to their total and the person with the most votes at the end of the final round wins. There is a version of this system which uses <i>Re-open nominations</i> (RON). This means that if RON gets the most votes, the relevant officials have to restart the election for that position (or positions).<br /><br />The Electoral Reform Society offers <a href="http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=103">these</a> arguments in favour of the STV system:<br /><ul><li>The system offers more choice</li><li>Fewer votes are wasted</li><li>Parties have a powerful incentive to present a balanced set of candidates (helping gender balance and opportunities for ethnic minorities)</li><li>Parliament is more likely to be representative of a nation's views and more responsive</li><li>No safe seats</li><li>Negative campaigning is diminished</li><li>Tactical voting isn't necessary</li><li>A more sophisticated link between constituency and representative</li></ul>The Chief Executive of the ERS made the following comment in <a href="http://www.politics.co.uk/press-releases/electoral-reform-society-tale-two-systems%E2%80%A6-new-reports-show-that-england-faces-%E2%80%98democratic-apartheid%E2%80%99-$1207659.htm">this</a> article:<br /><blockquote>"Make no mistake. The change in the way Scotland votes has transformed the political landscape. It has empowered voters to boot out previously unshakable administrations that simply don’t enjoy popular support. It has given a voice to independents and party candidates in places that were until 2007 no go areas."</blockquote>In 2003, voters in Vancouver decided they wanted to use an STV system. According to the author, a by-election (which was recent when that article was posted) would have had a very different using that method. He stated that under the current system, 66% of the people didn't influence the outcome. He went on to mention that votes wouldn't be wasted using STV. You can read the complete article <a href="http://www.straight.com/article-137286/proportional-representation-would-have-resulted-greater-turnout-vancouver-quadra">here</a>.<br /><br />So, many people seem to think it's the way to go (not just in this country). A major organisation also has a large list of the system's advantages. It is also the de facto method of voting for elections in student politics. What could be wrong with it? Why would you want anything else? At the most basic level it achieves all four of the objectives at the top of this blog post.<br /><br />There are problems with Single Transferable Vote though. The ERS list of advantages states that there would be "no safe seats". This is nonsense. With <a href="http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=54"><i>First Past The Post</i></a>, it's true that you can get the majority of people voting for the same people every year. However, under STV voting preferences could also be the same every time. In that case it's not the system that makes the difference, it's the quality of candidates and party loyalty.<br /><br />Another point was that parliament would be more representative and responsive. Unfortunately, STV doesn't stop candidates (or parties) from saying one thing during an election campaign and then changing their minds once they are elected. This is another area where the voting system makes no difference. It's not going to be more responsive either. That can only be improved with changes to governmental administration and faster decision making from the politicians.<br /><br />As for a "sophisticated" link between the constituencies and representatives, I would have to disagree. The <a href="http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/index.php">ERS</a> says there is more incentive to campaign at a local level, which would mean that the politicians are in sync with the electorate. It's not STV that does this though - it's the approach of the politicians. You could have perfectly good local campaigning under First Past The Post aswell because you are still trying to get as many people as possible to vote for you.<br /><br />The ERS also talk about reduced tactical voting. Sure, with FPTP you could hope that a third party takes away potential votes from your opponent to increase your chances - that can definitely be considered tactical. However, it's also tactical to say "if you're not putting me as your first preference, at least put me as number 2", because even if you're behind after the first round, you could always catch up later and win.<br /><br />What about the article about voting and elections in Vancouver? It's true that under STV, your voting preference has greater longevity as you are allowed more than one choice. It would mean you would still have a say in future rounds if your first choice was the first to be eliminated. However, what if some voters only want to consider one person/party or less than the total number of choices? There votes aren't carried all the way through in that case. There is no real incentive to consider the views of all the candidates.<br /><br />There's also the perennial evil that is <a href="http://www.channel4.com/news/microsites/E/election2005/apathy.html">voter apathy</a>. How does STV counteract that. In all the articles and papers that I have found, nothing is mentioned about this. Getting the population of the country more interested in politics is the only real way to make a Parliament or set of officers representative. It means it is more likely that those who are elected will be the most responsive ('most responsive' doesn't necessarily mean 'responsive enough' though).<br /><br />In conclusion, I don't think that Single Transferable Vote is a system that has definite advantages over other methods such as First Past The Post. I prefer FPTP because it means the party with the most votes wins and that is shown in a quicker way because there is only one round. It doesn't mean that a party is chosen because they were voted e.g. 5th choice the most times.<br /><br />So, what do you think? <br /><br />Technorati tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Voting">Voting</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Politics">Politics</a>David Morrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04261790016339571004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5546437397604926043.post-50108022696649750592008-03-19T09:23:00.007+00:002008-03-19T12:33:28.573+00:00E-voting: should we use it?There are multiple methods of voting and, for many years, a paper-based method has been preferred (in the UK, the United States and many other countries). However, in recent years there has been movements towards electronic methods. Several people have pointed out flaws, but there are also some great benefits. So, should we change to e-voting and what version of it should we use?<br /><br /><b>Governmental stances</b><br />The <a href="http://www.ippr.org/">Institute for Public Policy Research</a> published a background paper called <a href="http://www.ippr.org/uploadedFiles/research/projects/Digital_Society/e_voting_background.pdf"><i>E-voting: Policy and Practice</i></a> and it revealed that the UK government has plans to implement an e-voting system as a way of increasing voter turnout. In the government paper <i>In the Service of Democracy</i>, there were four things listed that could help to achieve their goal:<br /><ul><li>Online electoral register</li><li>Online registration and online applications for postal votes</li><li>Online and text voting</li><li>Electronic counting and collating of election results</li></ul>The United States have had e-voting systems for a number of years. In March 2002, California approved the <a href="http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/vma/home.html"><i>Voting Modernization Bond Act</i></a>, which allowed the purchase of modern electronic voting systems to replace their existing punch-card method.<br /><br />The <a href="http://igs.berkeley.edu/library/htElectronicVoting2004.html">following</a> shows the state's committment to this form of voting:<br /><blockquote>"In December 2003 California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley released My Vote Counts: California's Plan for Voting in the 21st Century, which outlines California's plan for complying with the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). The state expects to receive over $100 million in HAVA funds. In November 2003 the Secretary of State issued a position paper on the deployment of touch-screen voting systems in California."</blockquote><b>E-counting</b><br />The <a href="http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/">Electoral Reform Society</a> disapprove of most of the current state of e-voting in their policy document that can be found <a href="http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=45">here</a>. However, one thing they do approve of is electronic counting of paper ballots. They feel it speeds up the whole process and if it failed, you could always do a manual count as there is a paper-baseed element to it. The IPPR document mentioned earlier also details the benefits of e-counting and goes on to say that "In India the electronic system allowed the results to be announced a matter of hours after the polls closed".<br /><br />I'm glad that there is approval for electronic counting and I can understand why some people would want a paper backup. However, there really is no need for paper providing the technology is implemented properly. For example, you could have a voting machine using <a href="http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/raid/levels/singleLevel1-c.html">RAID 1</a>, which means that if the primary disk fails, you still have the information on the second disk and you could even remove it and do the counting on another system. If you have to use paper ballots, you could always do multiple electronic counts (possibly on more than one machine) to ensure accuracy. That would reduce the amount of staff/volunteers required and therefor reduce costs.<br /><br /><b>Machine voting</b><br />The following is from the Electoral Reform Society's policy:<br /><blockquote>"To minimise the risk of fraud, voting machines should produce voter verifiable audit trails. Rather than the voter completing a ballot paper, the machine should produce a ballot paper which the voter verifies and then puts in a ballot box. Should there be a dispute over the result, the paper ballots should be regarded as the definitive votes rather than those recorded on the machines. <br /> <br />Additionally, there should be safeguards equivalent to those described for e-counting."</blockquote>I get the impression that they would be happy happier if machines weren't used as their suggestion still goes through the same amount of paper as a non-electronic system, therefore reducing the machine to 'an extra hurdle', which could potentially slow things down.<br /><blockquote>"Following the March 2004 primary election, the performance of Diebold touch-screen systems used in some California counties came under increased scrutiny. In public hearings conducted by the Secretary of State's Voting Systems and Procedures Panel, it was confirmed not only that uncertified versions of Diebold software had been used in some counties, but that some of the software had been inadequately tested and had performed poorly, resulting in lost and miscast votes"</blockquote>If you read the quote above, you can see why some people would stop trusting machine voting. However, that situation wasn't totally the fault of the machines. It was the counties at fault for not implementing approved systems.<br /><br /><b>Remote voting</b><br />I can understand why the ERS don't approve of this as networks can be hacked and if you have unsupervised locations, there's the possibility of coercion. Despite this, you could still have polling stations with electronic voting machines until the security for remote voting has been suitably improved.<br /><br /><b>Security</b><br />In all the articles and research about e-voting, the biggest problem is security (especially in the case of remote voting). The IPPR document states that<br /><ul><li>ID cards and/or passwords could be stolen</li><li>If passwords are to be used, they would need to be short so they can be remembered, but that makes them more vulnerable</li><li>Biometrics could be used, but there would be a huge cost (the UK government estimates £31bn)</li><li>Viruses, firewall holes and network hacking</li><li>Voting programs are made by commercial sources. In the US there were calls to make the code 'open source' to ensure transparency, but doing that would mean voting systems could be hacked more easily</li></ul>The last two problems could instantly be solved by not having remote voting until security has improved. You could just have unnetworked voting terminals and put together the totals at the end of the voting period. With biometrics, there is a long-term benefit, so the high cost might be worth it. Biometric cards would definitely be better than standard ID cards.<br /><br />So, how would you improve security so that remote voting could be trusted? Well, you could use strong encryption on the database where the votes are kept. You could also use SQL stored procedures for website logins. This has been proved to protect against things such as SQL injection. There's also RAID, mirrored servers and making sure the server is in a physically secure location. Some would say that encryption can be weak, but there are also extremely strong varieties.<br /><br /><b>Paper-based systems</b><br /><a href="http://www.notablesoftware.com/rmercuri.html">Dr. Rebecca Mercuri</a> is a noted expert in this field and was involved with the decision to have a hand recount of votes in Florida in the 2000 US Presidential election. She strongly opposes any 100% electronic method (so she'll probably not be happy with the fact that 23 US states <a href="http://www.eff.org/issues/e-voting">don't require paper records</a> of votes). In <a href="http://www.notablesoftware.com/evote.html">this</a> article, she mentions the problems in California. What Dr. Mercuri fails to realise is that is was at least partly the fault individual counties for not using approved versions of the Diebold voting system. She also doesn't consider the fact that a lot of security problems are caused by the machines being networked (they don't have to be). E-voting speeds up the counting process and can help people with disabilities, so there is benefits.<br /><br /><b>Disabled people</b><br />According to the IPPR background paper, privacy is increased for disabled people (this is because they can use the same systems instead of going to a separate location). The height of the machines could also be increased or decreased for those with back problems (or for people in wheelchairs). You could also have audio versions of the ballot for those who are blind. E-voting can therefore make democracy more inclusive.<br /><br /><b>Trials</b><br />In Britain there were several trials (15 in total) and the most notable ones were in Swindon and Sheffield. In both cases the voter turnout increased. In Swindon, 61% of voters in a survey felt that e-voting was better and 94% stated that they would use e-voting again in a general election. In 2002 (the Swindon trial), turnout was as high as 31.2%. This may seem low, but it's still a significant increase compared to previous years (for further details of the trials, see the <i>E-voting: Policy and Practice</i> document).<br /><br /><b>Usage in the student movement</b><br />Many student unions across the country have recently started to use e-voting and most seem to include remote voting in their implementation because it means people don't necessarily have to go to the campus just to vote (they may not necessarily have lectures/seminars/labs on that day). At Hull University Union, the first year of e-voting had had <a href="http://www.hullstudent.com/news/index.php?page=article&news_id=8538">1718 voters</a>, which was a 25% increase on the 06/07 total. There has been a lot of controversy with remote voting though. The University of Essex's student union had to <a href="http://www.essexstudent.com/news/article/Independent-fraud-investigation-results-in-election-re-count/">change the result of their presidential election</a> because there was electoral misconduct and an unusually large number of votes coming from certain IP addresses. This could have meant that people were taking others over to a particular machine and influencing the way they vote. Coercion might have happened, but cancelling all the votes from those IP addresses could mean that some perfectly legitimate votes were made useless. They should have got the usernames and investigated those people instead.<br /><br /><b>Conclusion</b><br />There are (currently) a number of security issues with e-voting and many of those are linked to remote voting. This is unfortunate because remote voting allows greater flexibility. However, there are ways to improve security. E-counting and machine voting definitely have benefits and there is no reason why they cannot be used straight away (providing approved systems are implemented).<br /><br />So, what do you think?<br /><br />Technorati tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/E-voting">E-voting</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Technology">Technology</a>David Morrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04261790016339571004noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5546437397604926043.post-78819115121775476112008-03-09T13:09:00.005+00:002008-03-09T16:09:46.833+00:00The BMA vs. MMASince 1982, the <a href="http://www.bma.org.uk">British Medical Association</a> have had a strong anti-boxing stance. It has called for a total ban on all amateur and professional competition. However, everyone has ignored this and many people continue to watch and enjoy the highly trained competitors in action.<br /><br />Now the BMA are taking on <a href="http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/BoxingPU?OpenDocument&Highlight=2,Mixed,Martial,Arts">the world of Mixed Martial Arts</a>:<br /><blockquote>"As with boxing the BMA opposes mixed martial arts (MMA) fighting and calls for a complete ban on this type of contact sport. Ultimate fighting can be extremely brutal and has been described as ‘human cockfighting’. It can cause traumatic brain injury, joint injuries and fractures.<br /><br />The BMA believes that doctors cannot stand by while violent fighting tournaments are allowed to take place. Large amounts of money can be earned by participants, promoters and others linked to ultimate fighting but no amount of money can compensate for permanent brain damage and premature death."</blockquote>There are two things in that first paragraph that really annoy me. First of all, it would be good if the BMA did their research properly so that they could get the terminology right. 'Ultimate Fighting' is a term that's linked to one promotion - the <a href="http://www.ufc.com/">Ultimate Fighting Championship</a> (which happens to be the first and biggest of the promotions). Mixed Martial Arts is the sport.<br /><br /><b>'Human cockfighting'</b><br />This was the second annoying thing about the above quote. It was the Arizona Senator (and current Presidential candidate) John McCain who used this to describe MMA <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-03-27-toughman-popularity_x.htm">back in 1997</a>. <a href="http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1998-02-12/news/john-mccain-breaks-up-a-fight/">This</a> article tells you that he has attempted to get shows banned in the past. Back in those days, MMA was still relatively young and there were fewer rules. It was closer to Vale Tudo fighting, which means 'anything goes' (that particular style became popular in Brazil).<br /><br />However, that was 1997. On November 17, 2000, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0482628/">UFC 28</a> was the first event organised by that promotion to follow the <a href="http://www.nj.gov/oag/sacb/docs/martial.html">Unified Rules of Conduct</a>, which were implemented by the New Jersey State Athletic Control Board. Now, all MMA events in the USA must follow these rules. In the UK, <a href="http://www.cagerage.tv/">Cage Rage</a> (the buggest British-based promotion) also follows these rules, even though they don't necessarily have to.<br /><br />In the second paragraph from the quote, the BMA state that can cause "traumatic brain injury, joint injuries and fractures". You can get joint injuries and fractures in football and many other sports - why aren't the BMA banning those? You can get brain injuries if you're involved in certain types of driving accidents, so why doesn't the BMA ban both the sport and non-sport versions of driving? That's what you call double standards!<br /><br /><b>The rules of conduct</b><br />The following is what you aren't allowed to do if you follow the Unified Rules of Conduct:<br /><ol><li>Head-butting</li><li>Eye gouging</li><li>Biting or spitting</li><li>Hair-pulling</li><li>Fish-hooking</li><li>Groin attacks</li><li>Intentionally placing a finger in any opponent’s orifice</li><li>Elbow strikes that point downwards</li><li>Small joint manipulation</li><li>Any kind of strike to the spine or the back of the head</li><li>Heel kicks to the kidney</li><li>Throat strikes</li><li>Clawing, pinching, twisting the flesh or grabbing the clavicle</li><li>Kicking a grounded opponent in the head</li><li>Kneeing a grounded opponent in the head</li><li>Stomping on a grounded opponent</li><li>Abusive language</li><li>Unsportsmanlike conduct</li><li>Attacking during a break</li><li>Attacking the opponent if he/she is under the referee's care</li><li>Being too timid</li><li>Interference from a fighter's team</li><li>Throwing your opponent out of the combat area</li><li>Ignoring the referee's instructions</li><li>'Spiking' an opponent to the canvas on his or her head or neck</li></ol>A classic theory of martial arts is that technique can overcome power and weight. However, as an additional safety measure, weight classes have been introduced in a lot of competitions. There is also no inter-gender contests.<br /><br /><b>What about non-mixed martial arts?</b><br />After doing several searches, I cannot find a single article which states that the BMA have similar campaigns against non-mixed martial arts, e.g. Karate, Tae Kwon Do and Muay Thai. As a brown-belt in Gendo-Kai Karate, I know that both minor and major injuries can happen e.g. dislocations and breaks. However, I also know that there are and regulations (e.g. <a href="http://www.wkf.net/html/rules.html">these</a>) that have existed for a long time. Competitive Karate has referees and you can be warned and disqualified for breaking the rules. The BMA should either drop it's campaigns against boxing and MAA or make attempts to get all competitive contact sports banned.<br /><br /><b>Recent news</b><br />The BMA reminded us of their policy recently because the first English-based women's MMA bout took place at <a href="http://www.sherdog.com/news/articles.asp?n_id=11719">Cage Rage 25</a>. It was a short fight, but it meant that anyone doubting the ability of female fighters was proved wrong. It should be noted that there was a female <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/4105897.stm">MMA fight in Wales</a> a few years ago and matches between women have been taking place in the likes of the United States for ages (competitiors such as <a href="http://ginacarano.proelite.com">Gina Carano</a> have enjoyed considerable success). Yes, they get both minor and major injuries (proven in the match at Cage Rage 25) just like the men. However, if they have the talent and determination, there is no reason for them to not compete.<br /><br /><b>Criticism from the fighters</b><br />In <a href="http://www.mmaweekly.com/absolutenm/templates/dailynews.asp?articleid=4667&zoneid=13">this</a> article, Ian Freeman (a veteran MMA fighter who has just announced he's coming out of retirement), expressed his annoyance at the BMA's stance and reminded us that they had a similar policy with Kickboxing a few years ago:<br /><blockquote>"You had people saying guys were going to get maimed, they were drawing comparisons with boxing and saying it’s more brutal and guess what? There wasn’t a single KO for something like 6 months."</blockquote><b>Conclusion</b><br />We have learned that the British Medical Association are basing their opinions on outdated information. In reality, the sport of Mixed Martial Arts is well-regulated and has been for some time. Many promotions have drug testing policies and events have on-site medical staff in case there are any injuries. The BMA also use double standards in their reasons for wanting to ban the sport. In short, their campaign is incredibly weak.<br /><br />So, what do you think?<br /><br />Technorati tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Mixed+Martial+Arts">Mixed Martial Arts</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/British+Medical+Association">British Medical Association</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Regulations">Regulations</a>David Morrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04261790016339571004noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5546437397604926043.post-90203042521727855132008-03-07T13:38:00.007+00:002008-03-07T15:28:20.543+00:00Images and applying licencesThere are many situations where you wouldn't want your property stolen or misused. Fortunately, there are many ways to protect your work (if you want it to be protected). In the software industry there are a vast array of <a href="http://www.opensource.org/licenses/category">open source licences</a> and the most popular has to be the <a href="http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html">GNU General Public License</a>. Microsoft has it's own, proprietary, End User Licence Agreements (EULAs). An example of one of these is the licences is <a href="http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:YxETynTE0P4J:msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/downloads/EULA.pdf+Microsoft+End+User+Licence+Agreement&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6">here</a>. Microsoft also has it's <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/ProgramInfo.aspx?displaylang=en&sGuid=1028a3d1-4cfd-4dfb-b7be-1daba437b8b8">Windows Genuine Advantage</a> (WGA) and the music industry has a history of using <a href="http://www.eff.org/issues/drm">Digital Rights Management</a> (however, DRM is no longer used by some major music companies. An example of this would be <a href="http://www.pcw.co.uk/vnunet/news/2211483/warner-goes-drm-free">Warner Bros.</a>).<br /><br />You also have a number of choices when dealing with images. First of all, there's the standard Copyright, where all rights are normally reserved. This means that the only way to do anything with the image would be to ask the permission of the owner (or pay for it if there's some form of revenue model in place). This can be considered very restrictive, but it does mean that nothing will happen if you don't want it to. If someone does try to break that licence, you could ask them for a share of the profit, get them to stop using the images, or in some cases you could take them to court.<br /><br />When dealing with images, I apply licences, but they aren't forms of Copyright. I use licences created by <a href="http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses">Creative Commons</a>. These are less restrictive, but they still have rules that you must follow. For example, their <i>Attribution</i> licence means:<br /><blockquote>"You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your copyrighted work — and derivative works based upon it — but only if they give credit the way you request."</blockquote>Another example is the <i><a href="http://creativecommons.org/license/results-one?q_1=2&q_1=1&field_commercial=n&field_derivatives=n&field_jurisdiction=uk&field_format=&field_worktitle=&field_attribute_to_name=&field_attribute_to_url=&field_sourceurl=&field_morepermissionsurl=&lang=en_GB&language=en_GB&n_questions=3">Attribution-Non Commercial-Non Derivative Works</a></i> licence, which means you can use the image if you give credit to the author, but it can't be for the purposes of earning money and you can't change it in any way.<br /><br /><b>What do I use?</b><br /><ul><li><b>Photos</b> - for all my photos I use Creative Commons <i>Attribution</i>. I like to have credit if my pictures are used for anything and I don't mind if it's commercial or not-for-profit. I don't mind people changing the pictures, simply because I'm not the best photographer and someone else could dramatically improve what I've done. However, if my standard improves, I might change my licence.</li><li><b>Photo-edits</b> - Recently, I've been doing a lot of work in <a href="http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/index.html">Adobe Photoshop</a>. I take photos and play around with the program's various features to see what works. If I produce anything that I think is decent or better, I apply an <i>Attribution-Non Derivative Works</i> licence. This is because (as I've already said) I like getting credit for my work and if (either myself or someone else) can earn money from what I do, that's great. However, I have started to put a lot more time into making these photo-edits good, so I wouldn't want people altering them.</li></ul><b>Other aspects of my policy</b><br />If I ever make a photo-edit using someone else's photo, I always ask permission first. They might not have the same licensing system as me, so if I took something they did without asking, I would be stealing. Also, if someone didn't want me to take a photo of them, I would never question their decision or forceably take a picture. If I did the opposite of that it would be unfair and could be considered an invasion of personal space. I would also remove a photo or photo-edit from the internet if the subject asked (they might not like what I've done).<br /><br />One thing I've started to do recently is change the licence type on an image if someone made a request. For example, if I uploaded a photo, they might not want profit made from the work. I wouldn't question the reasons and in that case I would change the standard <i>Attribution</i> licence to <i>Attribution-Non Commercial</i>.<br /><br /><b>Enforcing Creative Commons</b><br />There is one notable case where breaking one of these licences initiated a court case. <a href="http://curry.podshow.com/">Adam Curry</a>, a former MTV presenter who is currently the Founder and President of <a href="http://btpodshow.com/">Podshow</a> (a successful podcasting network) frequently posts photos to the online photo galler Flickr (a website that I use). The licence that he uses is <i><a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/">Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike</a></i>. However, a dutch gossip magazine used four of these photos for commercial purposes (i.e. selling their magazine) <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/22/creative_commons_dutch_court_ruling/">without asking permission</a>. When Adam Curry found out about this, he took the magazine to court and won. This is now used as a test case.<br /><br /><b>Not using a licence</b><br />There are many people who don't apply licences to at least some of their work. This is fine if they don't mind people doing anything with what they've created. However, it might be difficult to e.g. win a court case if your image was used in a way that you didn't like. The person who did something with the image would not be under any obligation to remove it from wherever it was placed/posted.<br /><br />So, licensing can be important. You must also remember that their are plenty of choices out there, so it's likely that you'll be able to find something to suit your needs. I have a licensing policy, but as you can can see I allow some flexibility.<br /><br />So, what do you think?<br /><br />Technorati tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Photography">Photography</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Photoshop">Photoshop</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Images">Images</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Licensing">Licensing</a>David Morrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04261790016339571004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5546437397604926043.post-45738756652349716182008-03-05T14:52:00.006+00:002008-03-05T21:41:35.470+00:00Two Democrats and a RepublicanThe following is the results from the Democrat primaries which took place on March 4th:<br /><table><tr><td><b>State</b></td><td><b>Candidate</b></td><td><b>Vote %age</b></td><td><b>Delegates</b></td></tr><tr><td>Texas</td><td>Hillary Clinton</td><td>51</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Barack Obama</td><td>48</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>Ohio</td><td>Hillary Clinton</td><td>54</td><td>62</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Barack Obama</td><td>44</td><td>46</td></tr><tr><td>Vermont</td><td>Hillary Clinton</td><td>60</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Barack Obama</td><td>38</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Rhode Island</td><td>Hillary Clinton</td><td>58</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Barack Obama</td><td>40</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Uncommitted</td><td>1</td><td>0</td></tr></table><b>N.B.</b>Texas seems to have a <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/dates/#20080304">caucus and a primary</a>, which is something I've not seen before. I'm not showing the result of the caucus because at the time of typing, the results are still being processed.<br /><br />This table shows the GOP results for the primaries on March 4th:<br /><table><tr><td><b>State</b></td><td><b>Candidate</b></td><td><b>Vote %age</b></td><td><b>Delegates</b></td></tr><tr><td>Texas</td><td>John McCain</td><td>51</td><td>70</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Mike Huckabee</td><td>38</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Ron Paul</td><td>5</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Uncommitted</td><td>1</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Ohio</td><td>John McCain</td><td>60</td><td>79</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Mike Huckabee</td><td>31</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Ron Paul</td><td>5</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Vermont</td><td>John McCain</td><td>72</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Mike Huckabee</td><td>14</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Ron Paul</td><td>7</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Rhode Island</td><td>John McCain</td><td>65</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Mike Huckabee</td><td>22</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Ron Paul</td><td>7</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Uncommitted</td><td>2</td><td>0</td></tr></table>The wins for Hillary Clinton were very important. It meant she secured a significant number of delegates and gained some much needed momentum after losing Barack Obama in eight primaries in a row. However, it should be noted that Obama also increased his delegate count and that meant the victories weren't so spectacular. As a result, Obama still leads the overall delegate count (1451 vs. 1365).<br /><br />The Washington Post has an <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7278881.stm">interesting viewpoint</a>:<br /><blockquote>"For months before his victory in Iowa, doubters questioned whether Obama had the stomach to deliver the blows necessary to wear down Clinton's advantages. Now, the question is whether he can take a punch..."</blockquote>I don't understand why they think Obama is struggling. He's still in the lead - look at the statistics! He's won <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#1918">25 primaries/caucuses</a>, Hillary's won 16 and two of those had no delegates up for grabs. How on earth could that be considered 'struggling'?<br /><br /><a href="http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/">According to CNN</a>, the delegate count that's needed to secure the Republican nomination is 1191 and John McCain 1226, so he will become the GOP candidate at convention time. It's quite a comeback considering he was short of money early on and Mitt Romney was taking some big victories. Losing the first caucus (Iowa) was also a blow. However, McCain ended up winning in the places that had the most delegates and, as we all know by now, delegates are the most important thing in a US election.After the results were announced, Mike Huckabee dropped out of the race which means the only other active GOP candidate is Ron Paul, but his total is comparitively minor (21).<br /><br />What McCain <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/us/politics/05repubs.html">doesn't want to see</a> is:<br /><blockquote>"...another tired debate of false promises, empty sound bites, or useless arguments from the past that address not a single of America’s concerns for their family’s security."</blockquote>The following picture is from <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSWAT00907320080305">this</a> article:<br /><img src="http://www.reuters.com/resources/r/?m=02&d=20080305&t=2&i=3412141&w=&r=2008-03-05T185120Z_01_WAT009073_RTRUKOP_0_PICTURE5" /><br />Yes - that's right. John McCain has now received the dreaded 'Kiss of Death'™. George W. Bush has officially endorsed him. You might see him smiling in that picture, but now McCain will struggle to attract the anti-Bush crowd.<br /><br />So, what do you think?<br /><br />Technorati tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/USA">USA</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Election">Election</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Politics">Politics</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/John+McCain">John McCain</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Hillary+Clinton">Hillary Clinton</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Barack+Obama">USA</a>David Morrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04261790016339571004noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5546437397604926043.post-51923105649589747372008-02-29T11:52:00.004+00:002008-02-29T15:24:23.552+00:00HUU Elections - the resultsVoting day three was very interesting. As expected, there was a much bigger campaign presence on the Hull campus. We also saw sightings of people dressed up in costumes (one being an oversized Elmo!). This was a return to the great levels of activity that have been shown in previous years at election time.<br /><br /><img src="http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/2111/pic0002vv8.jpg" alt="voting day 3 campaigning" /><br /><br />According to a source on the Scarborough campus, the campaigning had slowed down over there. That may have been because people had to make travel arrangements so that they could be at Hull for the results. It could also be because people were tired of the hard work involved in campaigning.<br /><br /><b>Results time</b><br />The results party started at about 8pm and there were plenty of people from the start. However, at just after 9pm it was absolutely packed becuase it was time for the results (that part of the evening would have started earlier, but there was a technical problem with the new setup - any new system is open to that sort of thing).<br /><br />The announcement was done differently this year in an effort to keep up the levels of excitement. In previous years the tension was built up because it took time to count the ballot papers. This year, we had karaoke and then the results of the first round of voting for all positions. This carried on until we reached the final round of voting in the presidential race. As usual, the announcements were made by the General Manager, Paul Tatton who was in the role of Returning Officer.<br /><br />Anyway, here are the results:<br /><br /><b>Position:</b> President<br /><table><tr><td><b>Winner</b></td><td><b>Votes</b></td><td><b>Round</b></td><td><b>Margin</b></td></tr><tr><td>Helen Gibson</td><td>602</td><td>6</td><td>111</td></tr></table><br /><b>Position:</b> Union Secretary & Treasurer<br /><table><tr><td><b>Winner</b></td><td><b>Votes</b></td><td><b>Round</b></td><td><b>Margin</b></td></tr><tr><td>Alexander Hamilton</td><td>426</td><td>5</td><td>77</td></tr></table><br /><b>Position:</b> Vice-President (Academic Representation)<br /><table><tr><td><b>Winner</b></td><td><b>Votes</b></td><td><b>Round</b></td><td><b>Margin</b></td></tr><tr><td>Richard Jackson</td><td>n/a</td><td>2</td><td>n/a</td></tr></table><br /><b>Position:</b> Vice-President (Welfare & Equality)<br /><table><tr><td><b>Winner</b></td><td><b>Votes</b></td><td><b>Round</b></td><td><b>Margin</b></td></tr><tr><td>Coralie Tringham</td><td>414</td><td>2</td><td>n/a</td></tr></table><br /><b>Position:</b> Vice-President (Media & Volunteering)<br /><table><tr><td><b>Winner</b></td><td><b>Votes</b></td><td><b>Round</b></td><td><b>Margin</b></td></tr><tr><td>Wayne Buisst</td><td>392</td><td>3</td><td>11</td></tr></table><br /><b>Position:</b> Vice-President (Sport & Leisure)<br /><table><tr><td><b>Winner</b></td><td><b>Votes</b></td><td><b>Round</b></td><td><b>Margin</b></td></tr><tr><td>Laura Bennett</td><td>434</td><td>4</td><td>35</td></tr></table><br /><b>Position:</b> Vice-President (Scarborough Campus)<br /><table><tr><td><b>Winner</b></td><td><b>Votes</b></td><td><b>Round</b></td><td><b>Margin</b></td></tr><tr><td>Mark Alcorn</td><td>n/a</td><td>3</td><td>n/a</td></tr></table><br /><b>Position:</b> Chair Campaigns<br /><table><tr><td><b>Winner</b></td><td><b>Votes</b></td><td><b>Round</b></td><td><b>Margin</b></td></tr><tr><td>Barry Nason</td><td>312</td><td>1</td><td>n/a</td></tr></table><br /><b>Position:</b> Chair HUSSO<br />Abby Lester elected unopposed<br /><br /><b>Position:</b> Chair ISA<br />Jan Zahuta elected unopposed<br /><br /><b>N.B.</b> - Candidates who were elected unopposed were against RON (re-open nominations), but I have ignored that as RON is not a real person (apologies if I've just offended anyone who is called Ron!)<br /><br />You'll notice that some parts of the results tables are marked 'n/a'. That's simply because I didn't have enough time to make the relevant notes. If anyone can fill in the gaps for me, that would be great.<br /><br />In the elections for some of the other positions, the current Vice-President (Academic Representation) (Daniel Harrison), was elected as the Men's Officer, Senate rep for the Faculty of Science and the Chair of the Postgraduate Committee. Isi Genn-Bash was elected as Women's Officer. Emma Sharp was re-elected as the Postgraduate Senate rep and became the student union's Training Officer for the second time. To see the complete set of results, go to <a href="http://www.hullstudent.com/news/index.php?page=article&news_id=8538">this page</a>.Congratulations to everyone who won and I hope you have a great 2008/2009! As there are some vacancies, there will be a second election period in week 8 of this semester.<br /><br /><b>Turnout</b><br />The voter turnout for the elections was 1712 - that is a 25% increase on the previous year. It definitely shows the benefits of e-voting. There were over 1000 voters in the AU election and the Scarborough campus had roughly 700 voters, which are excellent results. Hopefully these figures will carry on increasing year after year. It will take a long time to kill off the dreaded 'student apathy™' though.<br /><br /><b>Tension</b><br />As the Sanctuary was packed, you'd expect plenty of noise. However, I didn't expect the amount of noise that could be heard during the announcements for each round of the Presidential election. Every time Helen Gibson's name was mentioned, there was a few cheers and a chorus of boos. Whenever you heard Chris Webb (the runner-up) mentioned, there was huge amounts of cheers. So, when the final result was announced, you can guess what it was like. <br /><br /><b>Rumours</b><br />I've heard rumours of negative campaigning in the race to be President, which can't have helped matters. If that's true, then I'm disappointed in whoever did it. Candidates should concentrate on their own policies and their own camapaign. If I remember rightly, you are not allowed to comment on other candidates. Fortunately, there are proper ways to make a complaint and hopefully that process will solve any problems. There is already a <a href="http://hull.facebook.com/group.php?gid=8894623062">group on Facebook</a> where the members want to challenge the results of this particular election.<br /><br /><b>Emotions</b><br />After each result was revealed, there were a number of candidates who were (understanbly) distraught. However, those people worked very hard and should be proud of getting that far. I hope they do well in whatever they decide to do in the future.<br /><br /><b>Finally...</b><br />Once again, congratulations to the winners. I hope you all get on well together and are able to do what's best for the union in your roles. There will be some incredibly stressful times, but please remember that you will have some great experiences throughout the year. If you do disagree, I think it's important that you resolve any issues and then present a united front. If the students frequently see arguments between the people running the union, they may feel that their vote won't benefit anything and voter apathy will increase.<br /><br />Technorati tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Student+Unions">Student Unions</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Students">Students</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Election">Election</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Politics">Politics</a>David Morrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04261790016339571004noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5546437397604926043.post-62640351411057762482008-02-27T22:32:00.003+00:002008-02-28T00:04:52.358+00:00HUU Elections - voting day 2It seems that there was more of a campaign presence on the Hull campus today. This is possibly because it's getting closer to the end of the voting period, so the candidates have to everything they can to persuade people to vote for them.<br /><br /><img src="http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/6254/pic0003aoh0.jpg" alt="campaign pic"/><br /><br />However, I still think that more of the candidates should have been doing this straight away. As I said in my last post, it would get you noticed and increase the chances of people putting you as their first choice in the relevant election.<br /><br />I also saw some people around the library, which was a refreshing change. In previous years there have been huge numbers of people there. Whether the library is a polling area or not (technically, it still is because of the computers), it's a place where many students go, so you should be there for as long as possible.<br /><br />Once again, I didn't hear a huge amount of noise from the campaign teams. Some students would cosider this a good thing, but only because it's often accompanied by people shoving flyers in your face. However, you can still make a noise without resorting to those practices. Without it, there isn't much of an atmosphere and some students may fail to realise the importance of the event.<br /><br />Anyway, that's all about the Hull campus - what about <a href="http://www.hull.ac.uk/scarborough/">Scarborough</a>? For those who aren't familiar with the University of Hull, it might seem strange to have a campus in an area that isn't Hull. However, it's quite common to have multiple campuses in different areas - it's something that has happened for years. For instance, before 1954, the University of Hull was actually a college that was part of the <a href="http://www.lon.ac.uk/">University of London</a>.<br /><br />According to a comment that was left on my last post (presumably by a campaigner), the candidates for the position of Vice-President (Scarborough Campus) were out in force and I'm guessing the people running for other positions were out there too. I say 'other positions' because this year is a rareity - we have Scarborough based candidates for more than just one exec position. This is in addition to the positions available on the Scarborough Executive Committee. I think this is really good news and I hope the same happens in future years.<br /><br />So, what about the possibility of the dreaded 'student apathy™'? Yes, you read that correctly. Once again I've mentioned that phrase that makes the sky go dark, makes babies cry and also makes executive officers so stressed their heads explode. Well, it could happen. No matter how hard unions across the country have tried over the years, voter turnout has been consistently low. <br /><br />At Hull, we've had highly visible themes relating to such things as <a href="http://www.dccomics.com/sites/superman/">Superman</a> (last year) and <a href="http://www.nbc.com/Heroes/">Heroes</a> (this year). These themes are an attempt to engage the student by using something that relates to them, instead of making it dry and verbose.<br /><br />After talking to a reliable source (the President), voter turnout was at about 700 (this was at lunchtime today). I expect a lot of people will leave voting until the last minute, so there could be a sharp increase and this would mean the individual turnouts of the previous three years would be beaten - a great result. Apparently, there is a target of roughly 2000. Last year, around 1600 people voted, which is roughly 10%. 2000 would be a big achievement.<br /><br />There are a couple of things in Hull University Union elections which make them different from those which take place in some other unions. The first is that HUU does not allow 'slates'. A slate means that multiple candidates would be campaigning as a cohesive unit. I have always had a big problem with them because firstly, it can only increase factionalisation - which also increases the chances of there being an unrepresentative exec. Secondly, there could be potential problems if only part of the slate is elected. It could lead to a divisive exec and disjointed decision making. I am glad that slates are not allowed. <br /><br />In some unions they are perfectly legitimate. For instance, at the 2007 NUS Annual Conference, <a href="http://www.respectcoalition.org/index.php?sec=1">Student RESPECT</a> had a <a href="http://www.respectcoalition.org/index.php?ite=1307">slate that had four people</a> running for different positions (Rob Owen for President, Assed Baig for National Secretary, Clare Solomon for VP (Welfare) and Siobhan Brown for VP (Further Education)).<br /><br />The second difference between HUU elections and those in some other unions is that the full-time executive officers can only stay for a single one year term. In many other unions across the country, officers can campaign for a second year, which is the maximum that is allowed.<br /><br />This HUU policy is something that I have consistently disagreed with. Although you can make numerous changes in one year, you could make even more of a difference and implement more long term policies if you had two years. This can be especially crucial when dealing with a university, as their hierarchies are typically much slower to respond.<br /><br />However, there is a way around this problem. 2007/2008 was the first academic year where there were part-time officers on the union's executive committee. You could get elected into one of those positions and then be elected as a full-time Vice-President (or the President) for the following year. Even though that is case, you could still have a situation where the majority (or all) of the executive changes every year.<br /><br />So, who is the person on the exec that is responsible for the elections? At HUU, it's the job of the Union Secretary & Treasurer (currently Jay Webster). Unfortunately, Jay is currently suspended from his duties, which means more work for the President and other exec members. Hopefully, the problem that lead to his suspension will be resolved quickly as it has a potential impact on the handover for his successor (among other things).<br /><br />I must also respond to an anonymous person who commented on my previous post (about the first voting day). It is true that the sabbatical team should be able to encourage students to vote and therefore increase turnout year on year. I must also thank him for mentioning my awe-inspiring victory last year. However, I must disagree with him on one point - I think the 2006/2007 sabbatical team were much more attractive (especially the person that was responsible for Academic Representation!).<br /><br />The next post will have news of day three and the results.<br /><br />Technorati tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Election">Election</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Politics">Politics</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Student+Unions">Student Unions</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Students">Students</a>David Morrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04261790016339571004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5546437397604926043.post-48788137520975035612008-02-26T22:33:00.003+00:002008-02-27T00:20:13.112+00:00HUU Elections - voting day 1It's that time of the year again where you see all the colours in the rainbow, plenty of catchy/cheesy slogans and people in costumes - yes, it's the week 5 elections in <a href="http://www.hullstudent.com">Hull University Union</a>. What will happen? Will the changes make a difference to the voter turnout? Will there be rule-breaking and arguments? Will there be more student apathy? I guess we'll find out for sure after the count, which happens on the evening of the 28th.<br /><br />So, what are the 'changes' that I mentioned? Well, for the first time there is a fully-functioning e-voting system in place on the student union's website and that is the replacement for the old paper-based system used in previous years. There was an e-voting system when I was a sabbatical officer at HUU, but it wasn't reliable enough - especially for something this important. The website changed at the beginning of the 2007/2008 academic year and it's much better (go to <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.hullstudent.com">this</a> Wayback machine page to see what the site used to look like). There's also 'assisted polling' in various locations, so people can have help with the new system if they need it. E-voting is definitely a good thing because it means students don't have to travel all the way to their campus to vote.<br /><br />Another major change is that the elections that have previously happened in week 7, now happen in this period. I can see the benefit in this, because it means that the election period doesn't go on for too long, which could annoy some students. HUU doesn't normally see publicity for the (what used to be) week 7 elections, but the possiblity for that was always there. After looking at some of the posters that are around the union, I can see that the possibility has become a reality.<br /><br /><img src="http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/6963/wallzy7.jpg" /><br /><br />Candidates are now allowed an internet presence. In my year (and the years before that), you weren't allowed to have a website because it was felt that with varying levels of IT skills, some candidates could gain an unfair advantage. I don't agree with this because it's really easy for anyone to get something up on the 'net. It seems the current executive had the same view. There do seem to be some restrictions though. For instance, if you have a <a href="http://www.facebook.com">Facebook</a> group setup, you cannot accept membership requests.<br /><br />So, what positions are up for grabs?<br /><br /><b>Full-time UEC member (one year term, cannot go for re-election)</b><br /><ul><li>President</li><li>Union Secretary & Treasurer</li><li>Vice-President (Academic Representation)</li><li>Vice-President (Welfare & Equality)</li><li>Vice-President (Sport & Leisure)/Athletic Union President</li><li>Vice-President (Media & Volunteering)</li><li>Vice-President (Scarborough Campus)</li></ul><b>Part-time UEC member (one year term, option to get elected as a full-time officer in a future year)</b><br /><ul><li>Chair Campaigns</li><li>Chair HUSSO</li><li>Chair ISA</li></ul><b>Other positions (one year, voluntary, can be re-elected)</b><ul><li>Union Councillor (16 positions)</li><li>NUS Conference Delegates (9 positions + current President as delegation leader)</li><li>Finance Committee (8 positions)</li><li>Scarborough Executive Committee (7 positions)</li><li>Societies Officer</li><li>Training Officer</li><li>Chair RAG</li><li>Chair Postgraduate Committee</li><li>Women's Officer</li><li>Men's Officer</li><li>Cultural Diversity Officer</li><li>Health Officer</li><li>Disabled Students Officer</li><li>Chair LGBT Committee</li><li>Chair Mature Students Committee</li><li>Environmental Issues Officer</li><li>Scarborough Finance Committee</li><li>Senate Reps</li><li>Delegates for the conferences of various NUS campaigns</li></ul>So, there are definitely plenty of opportunities for students to get involved in the running of their union. You can see the nomination formas of the people who have gone for the positions listed above by clicking <a href="http://www.hullstudent.com/news/index.php?page=article&news_id=8190">here</a>. You can find out about some of the jobs that are available <a href="http://www.hullstudent.com/elections/content/index.php?page=18700">here</a><br /><br />What about the famed 'student apathy'™, the great democracy killer? Well, it's true that most student unions have low voter turnout and the occasional uncontested election. The days of 24/7 protests are long gone. However, unions still do a lot. Who gets the food and drink in the union shop that students go to frequently? Well, it's the union dealing with groups like <a href="https://www.nussl.co.uk/login.asp">NUSSL</a>. More importantly, they stand up for your rights in the areas of academia (remember, you went to university to get a degree and you want to have a fair chance) and welfare (e.g. dealing with the perennial problem of troublesome landlords™). They give you a wide variety of entertainments and the opportunities to indulge in a personal interest. <br /><br />How is that kept at a high standard? Well, you need to ensure that you vote. I would like to see a bigger voter turnout compared to previous years (around 10-12% recently).If everyone votes then it's likely you'll get the best team for the job. If that doesn't happen the executive could be dominated by e.g. an unrepresentative faction that has their own agenda, instead of listening to the students that are members of their union.<br /><br />If you're wondering who I think the best candidates are, then I'm afraid I can't tell you because I don't want to be giving anyone an unfair advantage. I'm also university staff, so it could be seen as a conflict of interest. What I will say is that there seems to be plenty of good candidates who have experience and policies.<br /><br />Another thing that I have noticed is that there's a big difference in the actual campaign presence. Today I hardly saw anyone outside the union handing out flyers and talking to students. There were only a few people who were inside the union. This is possibly the effect of online voting. I still think that there should be a strong physical presence though - it gets you noticed and people are more likely to go to the computers and vote for you.<br /><br />There will be more news tomorrow. If you are a student at Hull uni, please vote. If not, I hope you have found this post about HUU elections interesting.<br /><br />Technorati tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Student+Unions">Student Unions</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Election">Election</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Politics">Politics</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Students">Students</a>David Morrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04261790016339571004noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5546437397604926043.post-18563914523402247002008-02-23T21:33:00.002+00:002008-02-23T23:35:09.112+00:00Texas - did we need the debate?I started watching the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVs0BfCBuRg">Texas Democrat debate</a> on YouTube (one which, like many of the others before, ignored Mike Gravel) and I started wondering if this was going to give information about the candidates that I haven't heard before in the other debates.<br /><br />The opening statements from Obama and Clinton were interesting. It didn't take long for the former First Lady to mention her successes with healthcare for kids. This is almost getting like Giuliani's 9/11 tourettes! She mentions an old policy numerous times and fails to talk about anything that could be considered recent. She also namechecked two Texans - a former governor (<a href="http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/other/ann_richards.html">Ann Richards</a>) and <a href="http://www.beejae.com/bjordan.htm">Barbara Jordan</a>, who was an ex-President of the Texas state legislature and an ex-US congresswoman:<br /><blockquote>"And among the people whom I got to know, who became not only friends, but heroes, were Barbara Jordan, who taught me a lot about courage, and today would actually be her birthday. I remember all the time about how she got up every single morning, facing almost insurmountable odds, to do what she did. And another was my great friend Ann Richards, who taught me so much about determination. Ann was a great champion for the people of Texas. She also reminded us that every so often it is good to have a laugh about what it is we're engaged in."</blockquote>Sure, these two women were clearly great people, but if they were important figures in Clinton's life, why has she only started talking about them now? It's a clear attempt to get applause from the audience. However, I think it would have been better if she talked about policies that would benefit Texas and the whole country.<br /><br />Obama made a <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/21/debate.transcript/index.html">slightly different statement</a>. He concentrated on policy and didn't bother namechecking people. He didn't mention anything that was as old as Hillary's healthcare policy. This made is speech the better one of the two.<br /><br />One of the first topics that was dicussed was possible negotiations with Cuba. This was raised because of Fidel Castro's recent announcement that he would not be continuing with his job as President of the country. Yes, this was new - but only because Castro's announcement was recent.<br /><br />It's an interesting subject because it's well-known that the USA have consistently believed that the Cuban people are oppressed. Obama and Clinton agree with that notion, but now that the leadership is going to change, they mentioned negotiations. Hillary wanted talks with Raul Castro, Fidel's brother and heir - but only if they show signs that they want to shift to a democracy. Obama wants unconditional talks. They both agree that there has to be a lot of preparation before any talks happen though and human rights would have to be at the top of any agenda. Obama made the point that the United States should have diplomatic relations with both their enemies and allies. This is a good point because you don't make any progress by only talking to your friends. For this reason, I thought that Obama won that part of the debate.<br /><br />Despite all that it's important to remember that Cuba is not part of the United States - it is a completely separate country. Why does the US think they should be the ones implementing regime change in a place that they do not control? Also, Castro ended the corrupt <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/castro/peopleevents/p_batista.html">second term of Fulgencio Batista</a> that was supported by the United States for six years. Castro has also decided to <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/19/fidel_castro_resigns_as_cuban_president">step down when he is ill</a>, instead of foolishly trying to hold on to something that requires a good level of health. The travel embargo was enforced by the United States, not Cuba. If that wasn't in place, innocent people would still be free to move. Yes, Cuba is under Communist leadership, but it's not exactly the same as the situation in the former Soviet Union.<br /><br />The next topic was immigration. I can understand it being mentioned because Texas has a border with another country (Mexico) and there is a high number of illegal immigrants getting through. Both felt that there needed to be a significant policy change. They felt that legalisation needed to be an option that was available to all and that there needed to be an end to the hate crime that hispanics suffer from. They both felt that the United States should help it's neighbour improve it's employment opportunities aswell. It was hard to see the differences, so I thought it was a draw.<br /><br />The economy was discussed (yet again) and that was added to the list of topics that have be mentioned ad nauseum. What is the point of having all these debates if we are just going to hear the same old material? The only people that benefit from them at the moment are some of the audience at the venue, because they will probably only go to one of them. The TV and internet audience have this pushed down their throats repeatedly.<br /><br />There are two possible solutions. One would be to have a single debate. Another idea would be to have multiple debates, with each one having a different focus. The advantage of the former is that the whole process would be shorter. The benefit of the latter is that there is a reason for people to view all the debates. The first option could be difficult though - television networks would be constantly battling for the chance to host the debate.<br /><br />It will be interesting to see what happens after the Democrat and GOP conventions. There will be debates featuring candidates from both major parties. The same subjects will probably be discussed, but there will be a different dynamic. I can only hope that there won't be as many debates at that stage.<br /><br />So, what do you think?<br /><br />Technorati tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/USA">USA</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Politics">Politics</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Election">Election</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Barack+Obama">Barack Obama</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Hillary+Clinton">Hillary Clinton</a>David Morrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04261790016339571004noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5546437397604926043.post-24941436044705535752008-02-18T12:09:00.003+00:002008-02-18T14:05:31.595+00:00Making Democracy workThe <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Democracy">dictionary definition</a> of Democracy is:<br /><blockquote>"Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system"</blockquote>In Britain, we elect our MPs on a regular basis to represent us in Parliament and the Prime Minister is the leader of the party with the most MPs. In the United States, Representatives and Senators are elected to generate national policy in Congress and the President is also an elected official. In both countries, the leader selects a 'cabinet' and each member has a clearly defined role. Although they are selected, the <b>theory</b> is that the people trust the leader to pick the right people for the job. Other countries have the same or similar systems.<br /><br /><b><i>What happens if the population of a country are apathetic?</i></b><br />If the people who elect the officials are not interested politics, there is a risk of an unrepresentative government being created. Once that happens, all sorts of policies could be passed that could negatively affect the future of a number of people (e.g. the apathetic majority). <br /><br />In countries that have a system like the United Kingdom, it could be a number of years before a party loses power. For example, <a href="http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page123.asp">between 1905 and 1922</a> the UK was run by the Liberal party (the leaders were Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Herbert Asquith and David Lloyd George). If any party had power for that length of time based on the votes of a minority, there is a strong chance of the government losing touch with the people and not taking the country in the direction that the people want.<br /><br />In the United States, the situation is very different. Although the people vote for the person they want to be President, their votes don't actually have any weight as that particular official is elected using delegates. Although the delegates are supposed to be loyal, there is always the possibility of them changing their minds and voting for someone else. This could mean that there is always an unrepresentative leadership, even if the majority aren't apathetic. <br /><br />In 2000, <a href="http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm">Al Gore won</a> the popular vote, but George W. Bush got elected because of the Electoral College, which means the US had (and still have) a leader who does not represent the views of the people. This is confirmed in <a href="http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm">recent polls</a> which show that Bush's approval rating is 30%.<br /><br /><b><i>What if the public cannot decide who they prefer?</i></b><br />If the population of a country cannot decide which party (or candidate) they prefer, there cannot be a situation where no government is elected. A democratic system demands a government and anything else would possibly lead to <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Anarchy">Anarchy</a>.<br /><br />If there are multiple parties with the same number of votes (unlikely in a <a href="http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=54">'First Past The Post'</a> electoral system) or there is a situation where the majority of votes is not large enough, another election could be called or there would be a coalition (the leader of that group would then become Prime Minister and a cabinet could be formed).<br /><br />If the majority vote and the parties forming the coalition have similar policies, this might not necessarily be a problem. However, if the parties have substantially different views then the leadership would be divisive and decisions would be harder to make. If it is harder to decide when to e.g. initiate an election, a divisive leadership could negatively affect the country for many years (especially if the majority of the population are apathetic).<br /><br />In recent times, <a href="http://socialistworld.net/eng/2002/10/22netherlands.html">Holland had a coalition government</a>, which was a combination of the Christian Democrats, the CDA, the VVD and the LPF. The coalition eventually collapsed due to major disagreements.<br /><br /><b><i>What if the majority are wrong?</i></b><br />In a situation where the majority of the population vote, it's possible for them to not know what is good for the country and a reason for that could simply be lack of appropriate education. You could then have a representative leadership that has a negative effect on the country. This is a problem with Democracy. Elections can theoretically prevent this from being a permanent problem, but the people could consistently be wrong.<br /><br /><b>Conclusion</b><br />In reality, no political system is perfect. To give Democracy the best chance of working, the majority have to be well-informed and have to vote. To be well informed, they need to use a variety of sources (doing this can create a more balanced view). If the people complain about the government not doing the right thing and then mention that they didn't vote in the election, you can only say to them that it's at least partly their fault. In theory, one vote can be the decision maker.<br /><br />It's no good if you keep informed at one election and then ignore everything. That would mean you run the risk of a party staying in power for too long and possibly losing touch with the views of the people (which would make them unrepresentative).<br /><br />So, what do you think?<br /><br />Technorati tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Democracy">Democracy</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Politics">Politics</a>David Morrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04261790016339571004noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5546437397604926043.post-33667658671130729102008-02-13T11:48:00.005+00:002008-02-13T14:02:55.231+00:00The Potomac primariesBarack Obama is building up a lot of momentum, especially after his successes in the Potomac primaries. John McCain solidified his lead by winning in all three of the states that were voting (this happened on February 12th). <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/dates/index.html#20080212">The tables</a> below are the results.<br /><br /><b>Democrats</b><table><tr><td><b>State</b></td><td><b>Candidate</b></td><td><b>Vote %</b></td><td><b>Delegates</b></td></tr><tr><td>Columbia</td><td>Barack Obama</td><td>75</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Hillary Clinton</td><td>24</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Uncommitted</td><td>1</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Maryland</td><td>Barack Obama</td><td>60</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Hillary Clinton</td><td>37</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Uncommitted</td><td>1</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Virginia</td><td>Barack Obama</td><td>64</td><td>50</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Hillary Clinton</td><td>35</td><td>26</td></tr></table><br /><b>Republicans</b><br /><table><tr><td><b>State</b></td><td><b>Candidate</b></td><td><b>Vote %</b></td><td><b>Delegates</b></td></tr><tr><td>Columbia</td><td>John McCain</td><td>68</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Mike Huckabee</td><td>17</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Ron Paul</td><td>8</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Maryland</td><td>John McCain</td><td>55</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Mike Huckabee</td><td>29</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Ron Paul</td><td>6</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Virginia</td><td>John McCain</td><td>50</td><td>60</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Mike Huckabee</td><td>41</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Ron Paul</td><td>5</td><td>0</td></tr></table><b>N.B.</b> - Mitt Romney was on the ballot papers and received some vote (strange). However, I've not included him in these tables as he is out of the race.<br /><br />For the Republicans, Maryland was the smallest of the three primaries, but Ron Paul must have been unhappy with his result there because he finished below Mitt Romney (in terms of vote percentage) and Romney isn't even in the race! However, there is no chance of Paul getting the nomination anyway. It's more about making a statement and raising important issues now. Any profiling he does will help him if he wants to run as an independent.<br /><br />Mike Huckabee didn't get any delegates, but that's because the GOP have a system where all the delegates go to the winner. The important thing for him will be the vote percentage and, unfortunately, that doesn't look too good. I'm not sure if Huckabee will stay in the race until the end now. After 'Super Tuesday' I thought he would, but these results have made things more difficult for him. He's still a possible VP pick though.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2008/02/12/1297429-quotes-from-the-2008-candidates">This</a> is what John McCain had to say after the results were announced:<br /><blockquote>"We do not yet know for certain who will have the honor of being the Democratic Party's nominee for president. But we know where either of their candidates will lead this country, and we dare not let them. They will promise a new approach to governing but offer only the policies of a political orthodoxy that insists the solution to government's failures is to simply make it bigger."</blockquote><a href="http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2008/02/12/1297333-mccain-fired-up-to-face-democrats">He also said</a>:<br /><blockquote>"I seek the presidency with the humility of a man who cannot forget that my country saved me"</blockquote>I think it's interesting that most of McCain's quotes are either inspirational or negative. In a victory speech, making inspirational statements is fine - in fact, it's almost expected. However, I would have mentioned something about the next primaries/caucuses and (possibly) something brief about policies (instead of criticising candidates). That sort of behaviour has occurred since the start of the process though.<br /><br />On the Democrat side, Barack Obama improved his position, although there weren't too many delegates up for grabs. However, his momentum will mean he is more likely to gain large amounts of delegates from the remaining states. This is what Obama had to say:<br /><blockquote>"Today the change we seek swept through the Chesapeake and over the Potomac. We won the state of Maryland. We won the commonwealth of Virginia. And though we won in Washington, D.C., this movement won't stop until there's change in Washington, D.C., and tonight we're on our way. Tonight we're on our way, but we know how much further we have to go. We know it takes more than one night or even one election to overcome decades of money and the influence, the bitter partisanship and petty bickering that shut you out, let you down, told you to settle."</blockquote>This was a typical Obama speech - plenty of inspiration and calls for the arguments to stop. Some people say his policies aren't detailed enough, but he included plenty of detail in the debates (see '<a href="http://lifedownloaded.blogspot.com/2008/02/obama-vs-clinton-cnn-debate.html">Obama vs. Clinton - the CNN debate</a>' and '<a href="http://lifedownloaded.blogspot.com/2008/01/south-carolina-not-on-topic-not-much.html">South Carolina - not on topic, not much detail</a>').<br /><br />For Hillary Clinton, her losses in the Potomac primaries weren't the only problems. Her deputy campaign manager, Mike Henry, <a href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/02/clinton_deputy_campaign_manage.html">has resigned</a>. He was expected to leave because the person who recruited him - Patti Solis Doyle - also stepped down recently. Some of the US public will see this as a loss of faith in Hillary and her chances of winning.<br /><br />According to <a href="http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2008/02/12/1297168-clinton-pins-08-hopes-on-texas-rebound">this</a> article, Clinton now sees herself as the 'underdog', which is a huge change for her. ever since the early stages of her campaign, she has mentioned how she has the advantage in terms of experience and policy detail. If she's losing confidence then it confirms that there's a serious problem.<br /><br /><a href="http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/">CNN's total delegate estimate</a> is:<br /><ol><li>Obama - 1215</li><li>Clinton - 1190</li><li>McCain - 812</li><li>Huckabee - 217</li><li>Paul - 16</li></ol>It's interesting how Clinton (second place for the Democrats) has more delegates than the combined total of all the remaining GOP candidates.<br /><br />So, what do you think?<br /><br />Technorati tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/USA">USA</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Election">Election</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Potomac">Potomac</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Primaries">Primaries</a>David Morrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04261790016339571004noreply@blogger.com2