logo
 Username:  Password:  
Remember me ( ?)

sir_quirky_k ([info]sir_quirky_k) wrote,
@ 2008-03-20 20:38:00

Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry

Ah!
Iziblog is back. Should never have changed. Hey-ho. It's like a supermarket that shuts to repaint and move the shelving radically, and then you find it was better how it was before.

Anyway, I digress. Singing's going well enough, Helen says she'd like to work on low notes but knows where my priority is, simply adding that she doesn't want my low notes to go to waste as they are apparently rather good; there is a valid question as to the extent to which one chooses to either build on one's strengths or tackle one's weaknesses, and I suspect that the singer-songwriter will place more emphasis on the latter than a classical singer in particular (for the latter is judged on delivering certain expectations of his or her fach, whereas the former is judged on self-expression which can be constrained by weaknesses). Exam results were moderate: two in the low 60s (2:1) for Politics, two in the low 50s (2:2) for Economics, and enough of a gap in the pass rate to make me convinced that my real marks were four 2:2s. Treated it as a major failure, probably fairest to call it a modest performance rather than a disastrous one. Even a 2:2 would be a pretty substantial achievement from the position I was in before, but a too-easy first year (and my excessive drive to get through it to prove a point, while others boozed their way to low pass marks with a too-small minority failing) rather suggested otherwise.

And we elected a vacuous blonde girl as Student Union President, which riled me so much that I now intend to throw myself into SU politics. Have already put myself forward for the position of Sites Officer, which is not a sabbatical position as the Presidency and a few others are, and involves coordinating the various satellite sites (most pressingly at present; the Boldrewood site just west of the main campus, home to the medicine students, earmarked for demolition and replacement, and nary a medic seems to have a non-zero idea what the heck's going on). The current Sites Officer has gained the sabbatical position of Vice-President (Media, Communications), and in hustings had called for an e-marketing push including Bluetooth advertising. Guess what? I voted against him. Fortunately, this is almost certainly unviable, but I will fight tooth and nail against it if I have to... The rest of the sabbatical team are much better.

It's worth noting that Vacuous Barbie Girl - whom I rather imagine singing Popular (it's not about aptitude, it's the way you're viewed indeed) - was only known pre-campaign within the Athletic Union. Guess what? They elect their President on the same ballot. In an election where turnout is otherwise 20% if you're lucky, that's one heck of a way to manipulate the outcome of the other races. Make the AU election exclusive to AU members, do it at some other time, and you'll get better (or at least different) SU sabbaticals. Alternatively, do what our sixth form did after two years of disasterous elected representatives; put all candidates through an interview process, weed out any unsuitable candidates, then let the rest campaign. This year, that'd have almost certainly removed Barbie Girl, and if it didn't then it's not enough of an interview. (Disclaimer: I was on said interview panel, effectively partial apology for one member of staff stopping me from standing for the student union presidency anticipating me being unable to do the job, then failing to remove the elected representatives when they were rather proven inadequate. Apparently the anger spread, another from my sixth form stood for Vice-President (Education) and came second despite being a second-year; he'll be favourite when he makes a repeat run next year.) Replacing AV with the Borda count - as we did in the same year - might also work. It should be noted, however, that neither proved quite adequate to stop a third straight disastrous pair, and the Borda count was reversed, despite (because of?) the fact it was vanishingly close to changing the outcome.

There is something else to mention, but I shall put it in a separate post, behind a cut, for it may be triggering.


(Post a new comment)

The legend of Lizo Mzimba
[info]daweaver
2008-03-26 08:03 pm UTC (link)
Athletic Union... They elect their President on the same ballot. In an election where turnout is otherwise 20% if you're lucky, that's one heck of a way to manipulate the outcome of the other races. Make the AU election exclusive to AU members, do it at some other time, and you'll get better (or at least different) SU sabbaticals.

Are all members of the SU deemed members of the AU, unless they specifically opt out? If they are, then it makes sense to combine the two elections. If not, then other questions do legitimately arise, particularly if membership of the AU is smaller than voters at the SU.

Alternatively, do what our sixth form did after two years of disasterous elected representatives; put all candidates through an interview process, weed out any unsuitable candidates, then let the rest campaign.

Why would this be profoundly undemocratic... Well, who would do the interviewing? Either the people who are currently in power, ensuring that we're restricting candidature to those who support the aims of those currently holding power, a la the Iranian parliament. Or some external consultants, who would no doubt charge an arm, a leg, and some other bodily organs, money that could be better spent on directly supporting members, and without any guarantee of results.

In my time there, Birmingham had very high signature requirements - with 10,000 undergrads and about 4000 postgrads, each candidate for President had to be supported by 100 people, each of four VPs had to have 75 signatures, and the Guild's Exec required (IIRC) 40 signatures. Oh, and no-one could sign more than one paper per election day - one for Pres and VP, one for the rest of Exec. That measure weeded out many of the fringe candidates. Indeed, it might have worked too well - out of 15 P and VP elections in my three years, two were uncontested apart from RON, seven others had just two human candidates, and no election had more than four. (And Lizo from Newsround headed the GTV coverage for all three election nights. Give him Dimbleby's job already.)

Replacing AV with the Borda count - as we did in the same year - might also work.

The ERS prefers AV for single-position elections, and STV for multiple-position elections</a>, but fails to adequately explain its working.

My personal preference in the world of student politics (indeed, the world of single-member constituencies) is for a two-round STV system. Where there are at least three human candidates, go for a better-than-the-French system: if one candidate has the majority of first preferences, they win already. Otherwise, use STV to determine the top two candidates, who have a run-off election (A -v- B -v- RON) the following week. Where there are two or fewer human candidates, skip the first stage and go straight to the run-off.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: The legend of Lizo Mzimba
[info]sir_quirky_k
2008-03-26 09:39 pm UTC (link)
Nope, AU membership is separate and paid-for, and about 25% of the SU membership are AU members. I've sighed before to friends at how this kind of pervasiveness of student sport is all very Moronican.

Good criticism of the alternative. In the case of the sixth form it was a panel of two members of staff and me, and we didn't actually remove anyone. We later regretted not spotting one pair who looked shallow and incompetent through the campaign - and predictably won - but interviewed well.

The two-round STV approach is an excellent idea. And in this case, may have prevented the election of Barbie Girl; she'd have been in the final two and people would have actually gone 'oh crap, she might bloody win this'. From what I could tell, a lot of people didn't think she could seriously win it, and complacency bred victory. This would get rid of that, as the second round would have seen a high turnout from opponents of Barbie Girl, much as there was a high second-round turnout against Le Pen in 2002. (Much as I dislike our new President, any implied comparison to Le Pen is unfair. I was merely using the illustrative point.)

I have no idea of the signature requirements, but our votes invariably end up as three-way or four-way contests.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: The legend of Lizo Mzimba
[info]daweaver
2008-03-27 06:31 pm UTC (link)
AU membership is separate and paid-for, and about 25% of the SU membership are AU members.

The former point suggests that the two elections should be disjoint, the latter makes the case much more strongly.

The two-round STV approach is an excellent idea. And in this case, may have prevented the election of Barbie Girl

Upon further consideration, this two-round STV system mitigates STV's failure to observe strict monoticity of choices - the voting patterns A-B-C-D or A-B-D-C should harm neither A nor B and advantage neither C nor D, but it is possible to construct scenarios where harm is done. More tellingly, this plan provides a further week's campaigning for people to focus on the two remaining candidates, shorn of the distraction of candidates who have come and gone. There's an appealing quote from someone in the Irish parliament to the effect that no-one in the Daíl, or on the street, can tell you what effect a third preference has. Under this two-step ballot, the third preference is not final.

I have no idea of the signature requirements, but our votes invariably end up as three-way or four-way contests.

(goes off and checks)

(blimmin' nora, if that website were any more ropy, it would be transferring to Portsmouth and run up the riggin')

Ten.

(goes off and reviews the results booklet)

Hmm, interesting.

Wearing my Peter Snow Memorial Tie (it swings three ways at once, dontcha know), three things I'd like to see in next year's results booklet. One, for AV elections, the preferred graph is a pie chart rather than a bar chart, so it's fairly obvious when a candidate has secured a plurality. At the risk of name-dropping, GTV had this sorted when many of next year's candidates were still in short trousers. Two, the transfer totals: stage-by-stage results are computable, but should be explicitly given. And three, the non-transferable non-effective ballot should be given as a specific (but not graphed) total - it's those spent papers that cannot go to any surviving candidate (and have not been used to elect someone, though that's nugatory in an AV election).

Mercifully, no candidate was elected short of a quota, because that just brings the position into disrepute. (Glares at Froglet, who will no doubt just flutter her eyelids and take no notice.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: The legend of Lizo Mzimba
[info]sir_quirky_k
2008-03-28 01:52 pm UTC (link)
SUSU's website has gone from one bad design to the other. The university's also ditching its love-it-or-loathe-it dolphin-square emblem in favour of a loathe-it-or-loathe-it text-only mess in ditchwater green but that's another matter.

Ten signatures is a rather unreasonably low number, but then again a higher number rather encourages the larger cliques to be stronger. Certainly, the AU would be enough with even the Birmingham numbers. A single society, though, would not be. A single department, that might be. To take the example of the music department, for it's a clique I've broken up a wee bit (and this year's runner-up, who would have won under the two-round system in my opinion, was studying half of his degree in Music too); there are about 50 new students each year, split roughly equally between arbitrary popular/classical divisions (the former referred to as 'Jazz and Pop', for it is in jazz that this university excels), plus the links to the orchestral and choral groups (which are not limited to music students, but in practice are mostly dominated by them - some more than others, the strongest cliques being in the symphony orchestra, natch).

SUSU's telly station - set up only in 2006 and using video-sharing websites as its model, and referred to by its URL susu.tv - did use pie charts in its coverage for 2008 - but only for opinion polls, and even then not all of them. Bewildering.

(If I don't stand for election next year, I'd dearly love to be the Peter Snow figure for the susu.tv coverage...)

The extra week of campaigning wouldn't half make a difference. If a 'joke' candidate makes the final two - as will happen frequently in this kind of election - their frailties can be exposed in a week of head-to-head campaigning, and more to the point there will be the clear recognition that this candidate can win and the only way to prevent this is to vote for the other one. Again, round 2 of the French presidential vote in 2002 springs to mind.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: The legend of Lizo Mzimba
[info]daweaver
2008-03-29 10:18 am UTC (link)
Ten signatures is a rather unreasonably low number, but then again a higher number rather encourages the larger cliques to be stronger.

True, but only up to a point. Even the best organised and populous pressure group (at Brum, the charity, social work, debating, and queer groups) could only wrangle two, at most three, candidates for five positions. A large number of signatures and an injunction against sharing nominees encourages the building of consensus positions, of people who are popular enough to run without enlisting the aid of single-issue fanatics.

In the situation you posit, the runners' candidate will get on the ballot for whichever position they desire, but must then compete against people who have policies designed to appeal to everyone. In a close election, being seen as the queer candidate made the difference between success and failure for one able candidate, but that's a story for a chums-lock.

SUSU's telly station did use pie charts in its coverage for 2008 - but only for opinion polls, and even then not all of them. Bewildering.

It's quite clear that they need someone who sort-of understands statistics for this coverage, because it's perfectly clear that they don't.

(If I don't stand for election next year, I'd dearly love to be the Peter Snow figure for the susu.tv coverage...)

Well, television is something you seem to enjoy, and it would be a useful networking opportunity. And if you harbour secret desires to nestle neatly between Anne Robinson and a cactus and be paid for it, this is a way to do it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: The legend of Lizo Mzimba
[info]sir_quirky_k
2008-03-29 11:29 am UTC (link)
The critical thing here is that sharing nominees isn't allowed.

This year, there was someone from a performing group in every position (except the AU President role), and they campaigned at least partly together (and I supported all of them at least equivocally; I think every one of them had my vote counting towards them at some point, even if it wasn't as first choice). However, the performing arts lot, while more than large enough to produce multiple viable candidates, are nowhere near large enough to beat a heavily mobilised AU clique vote...

I think being involved in next year's coverage may well be good. It is inevitable that I won't win, might as well be involved behind the scenes.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


copyright IziBlog.Net © 2008 | View settings | Terms of service