Election for the Ripple Editor - The Whole Story

Election for the Ripple Editor - The Whole Story

My two weeks in Leicester can be summarised by an incident that occurred on my first day back. I went to Dominoes Pizza on London Road at around 10pm. As soon as I left the shop a deranged homeless person (a lecturer from DMU) approached and harassed me for change. After a ten minute chat with DMU’s leading academic he grabbed my chicken strippers and ran off. So with this instance in mind as a good starting point I’ll let you know what happened during my time in Leicester.

The last time I was in Leicester was before the start of my Erasmus year in Copenhagen so I was keen to see what changes have occurred during my time away. The Percy Gee building was a construction site and the only other difference I could see was the new food shop in the Charles Wilson Building (‘Delicious’), another over-priced place to get your fill before a lecture.

During the first few days I also found time to injure my leg! This subsequently led to me hopping about like a kangaroo for the first few days (it wasn’t a campaign gimmick – honest!). So with a limp I continued on my quest.

My Concern over the Elections and Rules Committee

The Elections and Rules Committee supervised the elections which caused me some confusion as to why this is so. It was clear (particularly from a conversation I had with one of them in the Library) that they were not going to be fair when it came to my candidacy.

As a result of these issues I sent a letter to the Independent Returning Officer (IRO) to discuss the issue. The entire letter is produced here:

---------------------------------------------------------------

Concern: Elections and Rules Committee

supervising the part-time officer elections

It is common knowledge that the Independent Returning Officer suspended the Elections and Rules Committee (ERC) from their duties over fears of other leaks during the elections. These leaks were organised by myself as well as a source within the ERC. The suspension of the ERC, during the Sabbatical elections, has been something that the Committee members not involved in the leaks would be resentful of. As the public face of these leaks, I shall be the subject of most of this resentment.

These factors above should logically come to the conclusion that, as I am a candidate for the Ripple Editor, I will be put at a disadvantage when compared to other candidates. My complaints against other candidates will not be taken on an equal footing, the pricing of particular items may be higher than it would have been and overall the election’s democratic merits will be in doubt as a result of this tarnished committee still supervising elections.

May I remind everyone why I brought these issues to the attention of members of the Student Union. I felt morally obligated, as a neutral party, to look into and publish questions over particular aspects of the Sabbatical elections to ensure that the elections were as fair as possible. A number of positive actions occurred as a result of my articles, including: a reduction in voting times and the Student Council Handbook’s photo of a candidate seeking re-election not being published (as it would have been in the original draft).

The fact that the ERC was suspended for the Sabbatical elections but not for the Part-time elections implies that the Part-time elections are of less value. An election is an election and if the ERC’s reliability is in doubt it should not be allowed to resume supervising elections. Democratic legitimacy is not something that can be played with for convenience; it should be the keystone to any election.

You may not agree with what I said or my views in general but I am a member of the Student Union and I have a right to free speech. Furthermore my views or publications should not be an excuse to hinder a fair and free election.

As a result of the above I hope the ERC shall step down voluntarily or that they are removed. There is no other solution to ensure an election without democratic doubts.

Nathan Woodcock (nw67@leicester.ac.uk)

-------------------------------------------------------------

Despite these real concerns, the IRO (an ex-student) decided that he wanted to keep the Elections and Rules Committee supervising the elections for his own convenience. Nothing in his reply to this concern led to a cohesive argument as to why he decided to keep the ERC in place. The problem is that there is no appeal after the IRO so I was stuck with this unreasoned decision.

However, this did not stop me from carrying on the campaign (it just meant that I’d have to work a little bit harder).

The Campaign

After taking the sites in and settling into my new surroundings the candidates meeting took place on the 4th March 2010. There were a few familiar (and unhappy) faces in the meeting. After being briefed on the ground rules of the election we were lucky enough to listen to the Campaigns and Involvement Officer. Owen gave us tips on how to approach campaigning, which were really really helpful. I honestly don’t think my campaign would have been as effective if it wasn’t for the PowerPoint slides and the talk we were given. No doubt in my mind about this at all.

During the meeting we got to know who the other candidates were. It’s safe to say that my jaw probably dropped when I found out that SEVEN people were running for the Ripple Editor. I knew that the post was going to be heavily contested but the number seven was a major shock to the system.

As soon as the candidates’ meeting was over I jumped on the computer and published my Facebook group in order to gain publicity for the elections and, of course, my candidacy for the Ripple Editor. After sorting the Facebook, blog and youtube stuff I was ready to go out and campaign. At this point in time it was two years ago since I ran for a post so I felt a little bit rusty at first.

One thing that I knew I had to master was the lecture shout out schedule. I scheduled a shout out (or two) for every hour and emailed the relevant tutors. The vast majority of lecturers (over a wide range of subjects) were incredibly accommodating. The only problems I had were with two tutors from my own department (law) that used the old excuse, ‘if I let you I’ll have to let everyone or make a transparent system in order to determine who can and who can’t depending on how worthy the topic is’; only a lawyer could come up with such an excuse!

On Monday I began campaigning. I first erected my wooden displays around campus. These were a huge asset of my campaign, providing a permanent outside display. Campaigners stay in the cold for a few hours (and usually only on the voting day), whereas these displays didn’t need food, hot clothes or love (PERFECT!!!).

What I like to call the ‘Battle of the Paternoster’ was one highlight of the campaign. Out of the seven candidates running for the Ripple Editor, three of us engaged in a fight to control publicity on the paternoster in Attenborough Tower. From Monday to Wednesday the three of us waged war using a barrage of posters and fliers (and balloon animals) to attack one of the last remaining paternoster lifts in the UK. I was the first on the scene by fliering the individual lifts on Monday, by Tuesday the other two tried to gain control of this territory. I spent about half an hour each day adding my fliers to the lift only for them to be taken down later in the day.

An interesting aspect of this election is that we were all using different tactics and methods (which is unusual for part-time officer elections). I threw every conventional tactic at the campaign and added a degree of originality in the scrap wood displays. In addition to this I put ‘Nathan Woodcock aka Nate Dogg’ as my name on the ballot paper which added a bit of fun to the campaign. I didn’t make this up myself but I was persuaded to go with it.

One candidate used the pretentious idea of freeze-frames, where her campaigners (or cult followers) engaged in standing like statues pointing to her whilst she pretended to read a copy of the Ripple. A friend of mine actually summarised this in an articulate and appropriate way, stating that ‘it was so fucking sad!’ I couldn’t agree more.

Other tactics included animal balloons, which I found to be a quite creative and effective way of individualising a campaign. Each balloon animal had writing on it asking for the reader to vote for that candidate.

Another tactic that got my attention (as a male) was a poster that showed a photograph of a female candidate naked only covered by torn up copies of the Ripple! It was done in a classy way that reminded me of the use of rose petals in the film American Beauty. Although I doubt a similar tactic by myself would have helped (it would probably have deterred people from voting for me at all!).

The campaign was always going to be harder for me because I have not even been in the country this year as I’m studying at the University of Copenhagen on Erasmus. This meant I had to work a little harder and through sheer luck that I found people to help me campaign. I cannot thank them enough for the help they gave me. After people rallied to my cause I felt more confident in my campaign but definitely not complacent. I prefer talking to people just as people. I don’t see them as walking votes! So a vast number of campaigners can hinder rather than help a campaign, especially if they’re just standing there and not engaging with students.

This bad campaigner issue was something that came up during the election day where a group of 5-8 campaigners were just standing around and talking to each other outside the Library. They handed the odd flier out to a passerby and that was it! To be honest, if I had campaigners like that I would have told them that I appreciated their time but as they’re not helping me get elected (which is the idea at the end of the day) then they might as well find something more useful to do with their time.

The Complaints

During the week of the election two complaints were made against me by two people that were supposed to be neutral and that didn’t want me to win so that they can have an easier life next year as Sabbatical Officers. It really is pathetic how low some people will go to try to stop someone that only wants a better Student Union that actually does something for the students.

I went to see the Deputy Returning Officer and the Student Development Officer about these two complaints and laid my case on the table in an honest and open way. It was clear by the reaction I was getting that they knew these complaints had no legs to stand on but due to procedure they had to investigate them. I told them that I understand this completely and highlighted to them why they were a pathetic attempt at trying to undermine my candidacy. I even said that I knew who made the complaints (even though they were anonymous) and that these people have been subject to comments in my previous Lecture Boredom Buster articles. It was clear that they had a motive as to why they were bringing these complaints. On the day of the election I was told that there was no evidence and that the complaints were discarded as false.

The Result

I knew from the start I was going to be the underdog due to the fact that I’m usually 500 miles away. In addition to this my previous comments about the Elections and Rules Committee (who were counting the votes) made me a lot of enemies.

The results were as follows:

-------------------------------------

Ripple Editor

Laura Blumenthal - 434 Elected

Nathan Woodcock - 400

Emma Howard - 302 Excluded

Jamie Megson - 178 Excluded

Clara Probert - 136 Excluded

Lisa Prahad - 91 Excluded

Robert Ward - 48 excluded

Re Open Nominations - 21 excluded

-------------------------------------

As it was quite close, I was offered a recount. I thought I might as well take another roll of the dice seen as it was quite close. The results of the recount were:

------------------------------------

Ripple Editor - Recount 1

Laura Blumenthal - 432 Elected

Nathan Woodcock - 402

Emma Howard - 303 Excluded

Jamie Megson - 180Excluded

Clara Probert - 136 Excluded

Lisa Prahad - 92 Excluded

Robert Ward - 48 excluded

Re Open Nominations - 21 excluded

------------------------------------

I may have ultimately lost but 400 or 402 votes isn’t too bad when you put everything into context. Laura was a good choice and I hope to work closely with her next year to make the Ripple better than ever.

So, like I said, the two weeks in Leicester can be summed up by the instance with the homeless person stealing my chicken strippers. They’re both something that I will not forget about and they both put a smile on my face when I think about them.

I would like to thank everyone who voted for me, supported me and campaigned for me during the elections. I didn’t win but I learnt a lot about myself as a person, I met plenty of new people and I really enjoyed being back in Leicester for a few weeks.