Originally Posted by lawleypop

Well um... I dunno if I would ever say "voting isn't my thing," but I don't believe in voting. Maybe that's what the student meant? xD

Lol whatever it meant I was totally confused for 5 minutes trying to think what that meant and how one can make such people come out and vote! :\ But he did ask for my name again so I hope he actually voted later on :S

Originally Posted by Mahratta

Really? If anything, I'd think this year's elections proved that the vast majority of students couldn't care less about the SRA.

I would disagree for the simple reason that, though there may have been more acclaimed candidates than in the past, and some faculties failed to fill all their alloted seats, for the contested faculties, students sent a very strong message.

New candidates received substantially higher vote totals than incumbents and the voters chose candidates for their vision and past accomplishments.

It was amazing hearing people talk about voting for Huzaifa because of his astounding track record, or choosing passionate activists like Tanya Cagna and Alex Ramirez because they like their ideas.

Yes, the SRA needs reforming and yes, many students don't have faith in their government, but the thousands of students who still believe in our system made their voices heard loud and clear.

Last year, I got voted in by promising representation for ginger kids.


YOU DON'T KNOW ME! YOU'RE NOT GOD!! WOOOOOOOOO

I think another important point is that before we are able to adequately engage students...we need to, as an SRA, be engaged ourselves. Although the SRA is more engaged than a few years ago, there is a lot more room to grow and I think this new SRA has the potential to improve on it. If the SRA isn't engaged in their own stuff, how do expect general students to be?

engaged also should = actually doing work. Not just talk.

Still can't believe how well I did with no platform besides the ginger thing. I appreciate the people who took time to support me (hopefully it was because they knew my work) but in general, it's very laughable if you look at it that way.

Originally Posted by c.erl

I would disagree for the simple reason that, though there may have been more acclaimed candidates than in the past, and some faculties failed to fill all their alloted seats, for the contested faculties, students sent a very strong message.

Sure, the voting % may have been higher than years past, but the vast majority of students still didn't cast a vote...

New candidates received substantially higher vote totals than incumbents and the voters chose candidates for their vision and past accomplishments.

How do you know? With such low levels of voting, the higher vote totals for new candidates could just mean that they've got a few more friends than the incumbents.

It was amazing hearing people talk about voting for Huzaifa because of his astounding track record, or choosing passionate activists like Tanya Cagna and Alex Ramirez because they like their ideas.

This is interesting - but, again, how do you know that the majority of voters thought along these lines?

Yes, the SRA needs reforming and yes, many students don't have faith in their government, but the thousands of students who still believe in our system made their voices heard loud and clear.

Well, thousand-and-some students out of tens of thousands...

I don't mean to nit-pick, but that post wasn't quite specific enough for me to get your main point.

Originally Posted by Mahratta

Sure, the voting % may have been higher than years past, but the vast majority of students still didn't cast a vote...

How do you know? With such low levels of voting, the higher vote totals for new candidates could just mean that they've got a few more friends than the incumbents.

This is interesting - but, again, how do you know that the majority of voters thought along these lines?

Well, thousand-and-some students out of tens of thousands...

I don't mean to nit-pick, but that post wasn't quite specific enough for me to get your main point.

Au contrare, mon petite chou...you DO mean to nit pick.

If we seriously are going to debate this, I'm going to need better counter-arguments than "how do you know?"

But I suppose I'll humour you regardless. Great, the majority didn't vote...but more students voted than during other elections in recent history, and that is one hell of a step in the right direction. Increased participation starts somewhere.

And I don't know if the winning candidates had more friends or if a majority of people thought that the challengers really were the best activist voices out there, but I can prove one thing:

Take a look at the number of votes cast for new candidates and candidates with solid track records.

The total votes show the number of people who voted for real results and real change. I can't say for certain that a majority of students thought that way or that a majority of students view the SRA as a legitimate governing body, but I can say this.

Enough thought that way to make a difference. Just ask the entire new SRA Soc Sci caucus.

If you want me to be more specific, I'll write you a Discourse on the Nature of Student Government.

Originally Posted by c.erl

Take a look at the number of votes cast for new candidates and candidates with solid track records.

Actually, about an equal number of incumbents with "good track records" both lost seats and were re-elected. Unfortunately I'm unconvinced that students really know what's going on. In fact, from what I've heard, people who were elected to social science were campaigning down the hall from the poll booth and directing people to go vote for them.

It's really not as convincing as you make it out to be.

Originally Posted by Taunton

Actually, about an equal number of incumbents with "good track records" both lost seats and were re-elected. Unfortunately I'm unconvinced that students really know what's going on. In fact, from what I've heard, people who were elected to social science were campaigning down the hall from the poll booth and directing people to go vote for them.

It's really not as convincing as you make it out to be.

Yes but them campaigning down the hall is no different from what last year's(March 09) 5 elected SRA representatives for SocSci and Humanities were doing in the exact same area. Out of those 5: three didn't get re-elected this year, one did while the last one is not running again.

Since I was in that general area for some time despite a myriad of other commitments; they weren't sending people to just go vote for me/us. They were giving them atleast a 2 minute speech on why the voters should vote for them and their notion of "progressive change". Which in argument is absolutely no difference from those candidates who win a large chunk of votes by doing class talks, these were class talks except at a more personal level.

At the same time the other side of the argument is that from my observation these 4 candidates also came from a social campus background that is part of the non voting 80%.

As in their social network would most likely have not voted for any of the incumbents(including myself) or even paid any attention to the election or our spiels, so hence that probably was a strong factor as well.

Interestingly I also noticed that talking about extensive policy research and writing sra updates and the whole google thing made alot of sense to some people and they liked this approach(especially those in upper years who had academic knowledge of what policy is) but it went over the heads of other voters who were more interested in the WE will be different from the current SRA etc etc stuff. That probably comes down to the fact that alot of people asked "What is the SRA?" and I already voted for president and so on hence the SRA still has alot of ground to make up in raising awareness for what it can and cannot do.

The whole "What is the SRA? What do they do and Why does it matter?" question is something that I think needs to become a focus for the SRA. Yes we should be happy that participation is on the rise....but its still pitiful and quite honestly its understandable. We lack a direction.

'For students' is a nice thought but what does this mean? Ask 50 students what the sra is/ and what they do and you will get 50 different response, and a lot of them saying .....I don't know. This must become the central focus of the SRA. If addressed properly it could change the perception of student government within this school and establish some relevancy. That's why when I hear students say "our student government sucks" or that its "pointless" I don't get angry, offended or even laugh it off. Ignoring or attacking a students perspective accomplishes nothing. How are we (SRA) ever going to help students through projects and initiatives if we aren't listening to the overwhelming response that they don't know Who we are, What we do and Why we matter?

There is a lot of untapped potential in our student government, but a direction needs to be set in order for it to flourish.

Originally Posted by MD-L

The whole "What is the SRA? What do they do and Why does it matter?" question is something that I think needs to become a focus for the SRA.

Strategic plan yo! (Even though I know that's what you mean MDL)

Word up.

Originally Posted by MD-L

Word up.

Hey Huzaifa....im guessing you were confused at the "word up" so ill break it down to you in a writing style you will get.

Originally: Word up

Huzaifa-ESE (yes he has his own language)

Dear Rohan, thank you for the response I think its important for us to allign the organization in order for it to succeed. By direction I am implying a strategic plan. It is good to see that there is support for this concept. It is also important to get feed back like this (Write incessantly for 5 pages insert Marxism, demand a revolution ETC).

Also the common argument 5 dollars is 5 dollars is still 5 dollars makes no sense. I really don't see the merit in this type of argument and find it utterly irrelevant.

Having Said that.....

Cloud computing....Google Apps.....Random projects......

- Better Huzie?

More of that