VUWSA 2010 Election Results

by / September 30, 2009

As announced this evening. More to come once the INSANITY settles.

President:
Alan Young 285
Guy Williams 372
Max Hardy 807

Vice President (Education):
Alan Young 559
Sam Oldham 808

Vice President (Welfare):
Sam Mason 495
Seamus Brady 884

International Officer:
No Confidence 380
Alice Pan 1044

Environmental Officer:
No Confidence 373
Zach Dorner 1062

Publications Committee Rep:
Seamus Brady 1328

University Council Rep:
Fraser Pierce 153
William Wu 352
Amy Archer 386
Conrad Reyners 534

Education Officer:
Kieran Dale-O’Connor 633
James Sleep 698

Activities Officer
No Confidence 582
Alan Young 861

Campaigns Officer:
No Confidence 412
Bridie Hood 1006

Clubs Officer:
No Confidence 463
Fraser Pearce 955

Womens’ Rights Officer:
No Confidence 408
Caitlin Dunham 1058

About the Author ()

Kia ora, biography box, kia ora.

Comments (45)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Gibbon says:

    the only surprising (but funny and cool) thing was that Alan received less votes than a person who will be overseas next year

  2. Saladin says:

    Now I kind of find myself wishing Alan had won the presidency. What would have happened? Would VUWSA have spectacularly exploded? Would it just have anticlimatically fallen apart and prompted every single student to vote for VSM? Would Alan turn out to be some sort of Genius Ditz or miraculously lucky dunce who shockingly leads VUWSA on its most successful year ever?

    Whatever happened, it could have been funny, guys. It could have been funny.

  3. Saladin says:

    Also holy crap you only need to buy 489 people drinks to become president. I am so running this shit in ’11.

  4. Stephen Whittington says:

    So, turnout about 6 percent?

    And of that 6 percent, about 30 percent voted no confidence when it was available.

  5. Alan Young says:

    hey sorry saladin but the people have voted and obviously max is the man for the job so I shall pull full support behind him and hope him well. and hey Gibbon I’m sorry I don’t know you but hopefully we can meet in future as im sure your an amazing person and you can get to know me better before you judge and indeed you could be an amazing president in future

    Kind regards
    Alan Young

  6. Weta says:

    to be honest Alan, I’m not sure if people were judging you, they were judging your credentials for the job.
    which they had every right to do, as you made your (lack) of credentials painfully clear over the course of the campaign.
    you put yourself forward for a public office and were found wanting. the right of the voter is to deem you inadequate for the job. this wasn’t because people didn’t “know you better”.

  7. Matt says:

    Alan “Dubya” Young.

  8. aw says:

    that was boring!

  9. Gibbon says:

    hi Alan unfortunately the people didn’t seem to think i was an awesome president as i didn’t manage to get elected a second time :(

  10. Alpha says:

    Alan Palin

  11. Guy Williams says:

    Congratulados Max! and congratulations Alan, in may you continue my proud activities legacy for years to come.
    Sorry again to people who voted for me although

  12. Jemima says:

    Worst turn out ever.

    Hey here is an idea for who ever the returning officer is – FCKING ADVERTISE THERE IS AN ELECTION AND OFFER PRIZES FOR VOTING.

    I’d vote if I was going to get a V out of it.

    As it turns out I voted for Alan Young and the No Confidence ticket. I’d like to put myself forward for queer-rep.

  13. Ms. M says:

    To be honest, Guy, I’m kind of disappointed you ended up not running. I think it would have been nice to have a comic for a VUSWA President. It would make a nice change to have a President who was intentionally funny for a change.

    Yeah, I was basically voting for you because I’ve seen your stand up a few times. There are worse reasons for voting for somebody, like them being a member of the worker’s party.

  14. Jemima says:

    Joel wasn’t a comedian?

    I’m pretty sure his entire life has been one amazing piece of method acting.

    Penises are pretty funny.

  15. Magonagal says:

    If a turnout of less than 10% of the student body is not a massive vote of no confidence in VUWSA I don’t know whatis! When less than 50% of voters turned out in US there was huge criticism of Bush’s right to speak for the people of the USA. If VUWSA can’t even reach 10% how can they claim to represent students? Most of the time when they hold public meetings they can’t even raise a quorum (see previous Salient stories). Bring on VSM. It can’t come soon enough.

  16. Weta says:

    Magonagal,

    So if a minority of voters exercised their democratic right in the US federal elections, or even in New Zealand, should membership to the governing body therefore be optional? I’m not sure many people (except anarchists) would advocate Voluntary Citizenship (and the corresponding laws, services, etc. provided therein).

    Similarly, just because many students are too apathetic to vote in VUWSA elections why should that mean that the services, support, and (dare I say it) representation that VUWSA affords its members be restricted to the minority?

    And no doubt many before me have said, if you don’t like the services VUWSA offers or the people on the executive then (as with any democracy) you hold the power to bring about change.

    So please, if this is an issue of your objection to belonging to VUWSA then by all means LEAVE, and let the contributions of the majority provide for a student body where none are disadvantaged due to personal circumstance.

  17. Magonagal says:

    I would leave if I could but unfortunately membership and fees are mandatory. I DON”T HAVE A CHOICE. My comment was a reflection on the VUWSA Exec past and present. You assume that students chose not to vote because they are apathetic. What evidence do you have for that? My assumption that they abstained from voting due to No confidence in the Exec has equal in/validity.

  18. Weta says:

    Membership is not ‘mandatory’, you can object and apply to leave the association. True, you wont get your fees back but it will go to charity. Think of it as your public service for the year.

    I don’t assume that all students don’t vote because of their apathy. You are quite right, there are bound to be a number of reasons that students abstain from voting. However, the reason that I suggested apathy was merely anecdotal evidence from my years at Victoria in which every student who didn’t vote that I asked personally said they didn’t because of their own apathy. However, this rightly does not account for all students, so neither you nor I can prove (without further research) why students aren’t voting. So until statistics say otherwise, we are indeed equally valid in our suggestions.

    At the end of the day VUWSA is a democratic institution, and democracy doesn’t work on the premise of exclusion, as VSM would do. Democracy works by everyone having the right to express their views. By all means, put forward your own referendum for VSM, apply for office yourself (the domination of the Workers Party in the exec is somewhat undesirable), and become active in the organization – it is as much yours as anyone else’s.

    VUWSA allows all voices an opportunity to be heard, and it is the students responsibility, not Roger Douglas’, to bring about the desired changes. I put it to you that democracy cannot and will not work without the inclusion of all; what would happen if at every general election in New Zealand the supporters of the losing parties removed themselves New Zealand public life and became rogue agents or anarchists? It is unmanageable, impossible, and just plain wrong.

    So I will say two things to you:
    1) If the students of Victoria decide that this Association does not represent them, then they need to follow the constitutional procedure which would allow them to introduce VSM at Victoria, and not rely on Roger Douglas. If VSM is truly what students want, they can and should say so.
    2) Democracy works on the rule of the majority, so if VUWSA members introduce VSM themselves, I would have no hesitation in respecting their wishes. However, I cannot and will not support the wishes of a politician who represents a minority of the New Zealand population and certainly does not represent the majority of student views.

  19. Alpha says:

    A small minority of people voted for the ACT Party in the general election. Indeed, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the only reason Sir Roger Douglas is back in Parliament because Rodney Hide won Epsom? In principle, we are allowing the residents of Epsom to decide if we should have VSM. And here’s someone complaining about low voter turn out for the VUWSA elections. I’d rather put my faith in the opinion of the minority of un-apathetic students, than in the residents of Epsom…

  20. peteremcc says:

    “Democracy works on the rule of the majority, so if VUWSA members introduce VSM themselves, I would have no hesitation in respecting their wishes.”

    No, democracy works on two things:

    1) The rule of the majority in general.
    2) The choice and freedom of the individual for specific issues.

    The reason we have a bill of rights is to set down the things that we, as society, believe that people should always have, no matter what the majority think.

    We protect people’s right to life, even if the majority think they should be killed.
    We protect people’s right to free speech, even if the majority think they should be silence.
    We should protect people’s right to freedom of association, even if the majority think they should be able to force them to join their club and fund their political issues.

  21. Weta says:

    You don’t seriously think that we have a bill of rights that would contradict the majority wish? If the majority did not believe in the provisions of the bill of rights, where would the support come from? Amazing as the bill is, it cannot support itself.

    While personal freedoms would be a guarantee in an ideal democracy, I think you will find that nearly every democracy in practice restricts certain freedoms to ensure the security of the majority. So I stand by my original statement.

    I think everyone realizes by now that you think that VUWSA denies freedom of association but, as I’m sure several people have said to you, you can leave if you want. And if your membership dues go to charity, the world will be all the better for it. And still you ignore the core of my argument, that if you believe VSM was something students wanted then you could introduce a referendum yourself, and not have to rely on Roger Douglas to force his wishes upon students.

  22. Jemima says:

    The problem here is that the pro vsm’ers have a targeted argument. Yes, csm removes freedom of association. Yes, because of dedicated revenue streams with little accountability you have fools and idiots of what is essentially a charitable organisation at best – business at worst.

    Pro CSMers take a short sighted scattershot approach. The fire off many arguments which don’t address the pro VSM arguements.

    Let’s be clear. VUWSA is not a government. It shouldn’t be regarded as such. It is, as pointed out before, a charity or business.

    The arguement that V U W S A provides integral services is also bunk. Food bank can and is mostly funded by outside organisations, and there are is already a food bank in wellington. This would probably be better because their customer base would expand. Like the mitre 10 guy says. Buy more, pay less.
    The only thing really underthreat is student representation on boards. But then again since most of the representatives are elected by less than 10% of students that’s not really representative is it.

    If students associations were genuinely under threat the best Way to deal with the problem is to tackle the arguments against CSM and to ensure competency in management and governance.

  23. Your name says:

    I’m hungry

  24. peteremcc says:

    We aren’t forcing anything on students.

    The natural state of being is that people are free to join, or not join, any club, group or incorporated society as they wish.

    Then students associations realised they had friends in cabinet and got the government to pass a special law for them forcing people to join them and giving them a guaranteed income stream.

    Again, to be clear, Parliament passed a law changing the natural situation.

    All this bill doe is repeal that tiny part of the law so that things return to normal and students can choose whether they want to join or not.

    Let’s try applying your argument to trade unions. Presumably you believe that when the government made them voluntary it was forcing people to not be forced to join, right?

  25. peteremcc says:

    Oh, and again Jemima, since when have rights been contingent on a referendum.

    Would you be happy if we killed blue eyed babies, so long as we had a referendum first?
    Should the majority, say National and ACT, decide that anyone else shouldn’t be in Parliament?

    Every single argument listed on this thread in favour of CSM for students associations could be made in favour of making joining ACT on Campus compulsory for all students – maybe I should give Rodney a ring and see if we can get a favour too?

  26. Alpha says:

    I think you’re being stupid. Your main problem with CSM is that a student’s association will not adequately represent you, correct? So why don’t you just do something democratically, within the current system, to change this? There are more non-Worker’s Party students than there are members of the Worker’s Party as a whole. So get people voting!

    Also, why have an opt-in scheme when we could just reform the opt-out scheme? Studies show that people are less likely to opt-in if the status-quo is non-membership, and vice versa. If opting-out was made easier, and money was refunded rather than given to charity, most students would remain within VUWSA, so that the funds it relies on would not be cut short, and all the members of ACT On Campus could do us all a favour by leaving. Of course, then they would not get to read Salient, get free food, legal representation, health services, etc.

    But we’d all be happy, wouldn’t we?

  27. peteremcc says:

    Alpha… you shouldn’t have to ‘get involved’ in something you don’t want to be a member of, just so that they don’t spend your money advocating against your beliefs.

    Again, let’s make ACT on Campus compulsory. You and every other student will be paying us $1000 next year (remember, we set the fee ourselves) and you can opt-out if we let you. But that’s ok, because you can just ‘get involved’ so that we’re not spending your money on supporting ACT. Oh, but also don’t be surprised if your use the $1000 that you paid us to campaign against you when you ‘get involved’ so that the people we want to win do.

    And this all completely ignores the fact that if we did get involved, and won, and controlled the executive, that wouldn’t fix the misrepresentation issue. VUWSA wouldn’t be misrepresenting ME anymore, but it would still be misrepresenting thousand of other students who don’t agree with me.

    Oh and “Salient, get free food, legal representation, health service”?

    Is that the best you’ve got?

    Anyone can read Salient for free already – they put them around town for anyone to take.

    The free food, like bread, doesn’t go to people who need it. Often I’m in the VUWSA office and they’re being offered to whoever walks in the door – i’ve had it offered to me on multiple occasions.

    Legal representation – I assume that’s a joke… going to VUWSA for legal advice is like going to Bernie Madoff for investment advice. They can’t even follow their own constitution, I wouldn’t want them giving me legal advice.

    Health service – you mean the one that isn’t paid for by VUWSA and has nothing to do with them?

  28. Alpha says:

    Look, I’ll simplify my question because you picked at details while completely ignoring what I was asking. Why don’t we reform the opt-out scheme rather than create an opt-in scheme?

    Doing so would mean that many people would remain in VUWSA (though they could leave at any time) so that (expensive) services could still be granted to those who required them, rather than no services for no one.

  29. Weta says:

    Your argument about CSM of Act on campus is flawed in many ways, but most obviously, I would assume that the stated aims of ACT on campus have something to do with promoting an supporting the policies of the ACT party which is a minority viewpoint of New Zealand. Whereas VUWSA in its purest form exists to support and promote student rights, which every student kind of have has a stake in.

    But I agree with Alpha. Peter, would you be supportive of a system that lets you opt out with no financial loss as a compromise, rather than a system that automatically opts everyone out? And if so, by all means introduce a referendum to VUWSA to that effect.

  30. peteremcc says:

    No Weta,

    ACT on Campus supports policies that are best for everyone – everyone would benefit from being a member.

    Maybe if we make people a member of ACT on Campus by default, but then they can opt-out? Surely that would be ok with you then?

  31. Alpha says:

    You really have a knack for missing the point, peteremcc.

  32. Weta says:

    Peter,
    Obviously being an ACT supporter you would think their policies are best for everyone, but unfortunately for you a minority of New Zealanders (and even less students) agree. However, considering that VUWSA’s constitution is amendable through referendum, VUWSA is open to all students interpretation of how they may best support student rights.

  33. MattF says:

    I think we should all just own our ideological foibles here. It’d allow actual debate, rather than just constant arguing back and forth between what amounts to tautological positions. Some take an individualist approach—they think the benefit of CSM is outweighed by the obviously massive cost to their personal freedom imposed by the weighty shackles of forced VUWSA membership. Others however, think that what in certain cases might be a despicable breach of human rights—forcing people to join a union *shudder*—is outweighed, in this particular case, by the benefits gained (directly by some, and indirectly by many) of everyone being a member of the association. I’m not sure whether a perfect argument could be developed for either side, but it seems to me that the costs and benefits to all students should be considered, and that includes the vast majority who are apathetic when it comes to voting, but who still (it seems arguable) benefit from the services VUWSA provides. It’d probably require some decent research into the effects say, of VSM being introduced in other countries, and some suggestions as to the gains and losses that resulted, and what could be expected here. Or something.

  34. Gibbon says:

    damn it, if only we had cosgrove’s report!

  35. Jackson Wood says:

    Gibbon: I have a copy in the office if you want it!

  36. peteremcc says:

    Weta, you’ll be able to modify the ACT on Campus constitution too once you’re all members.

    Matt, interesting comments, but in my experience most of those in favour of CSM for students associations also believe in compulsory trade unions.

    The vast majority of students don’t know or care about their student association but that’s even more reason to make them voluntary.

  37. MattF says:

    Well, so what? If there was evidence that compulsory trade union membership had benefits to workers that outweighed the loss of freedom of association, perhaps it would be worth supporting. Perhaps not. Most likely is that, if both sides would relax on the ideological argument just slightly, effective compromise might be more likely. The point I’m trying to make is that arguments from principles like that, while all good and noble, often just don’t lead to actual solutions, just endless bickering. Either that or a highly satisfactory outcome for one side and highly unsatisfactory outcome for the other. I’m not saying that we should just abandon all principles, by any means; but I do think that sticking to them absolutely, in every case leads pretty close to zero-sum reasoning alot of the time, often where fairer, more widely beneficial solutions seem possible.
    As for the fact that the “vast majority of students don’t know or care about their student association,” I disagree that this is a reason for VSM. As I said, not knowing, caring, or voting doesn’t necessarily mean you don’t benefit from membership, or use the services.

  38. Gibbon says:

    really, JJW? it exists?

  39. Jackson Wood says:

    It’s a report, Gib. But not as we know it.

  40. Weta says:

    Well Peter, if there was CSM of ACT on campus, and anyone could change the constitution by referendum, then it sounds to me like this would pretty much just be VUWSA with a different name… not your most convincing argument thus far.

  41. nick jackson says:

    peter maccaffrey is a total fuck wit

  42. nick jackson says:

    wooo fraser won!!! better luck next time mr no confidence!!!

  43. nick jackson says:

    nothing personal againts peter by the way. i respect everyones views and all that. but some peoples (ie his) methods are freaking rediculous. and seriously who argues on these things anyway. plus his last name is annoyingly hard to spell.

  44. Alpha says:

    NICK JACKSON: THESE ARE CAPITAL LETTERS. THEY COME AT THE BEGINNING OF SENTENCES, AND AT THE BEGINNING OF PROPER NOUNS. PLEASE NOTE THIS FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.

  45. Martha Focker says:

    Good result… for VSM that is. :)

    I think we should make National compulsory, more students in NZ voted for them than any of the other guys. If Peter changed his argument to that instead of ACT then we’d be onto a winner.

    I can imagine hearing you pathetic CSM flunkies crying into your breakfast every day if you had to pay the Nats every year. You’re all complete and utter fucktards.