Kieran Lawrence looks at autonomous weapons and the effect they could have on modern warfare
Continuing a series on world leaders, Miles Deverson takes a look at Angela Merkel
Ben Bland examines the fallout from the Iowa caucuses and looks forward to the New Hampshire primaries.
In the first of a series on world leaders, Miles Deverson takes a look at Nicholas Sarkozy
As anybody who pays any attention to the campus media will know, Wednesday was a quiet day for campaigning, several candidates having been banned for various amounts of time over the day, due to apparent breaches of campaign regulations. Yet, what is confusing to those unfamiliar with election rules, is why the candidates themselves were being punished for offences they did not commit. Surely, emails not sent out by the candidates and without the candidates’ knowledge, however positive, cannot be used as evidence of unfair campaigning by the candidate?
But it is. It is made clear in the campaign regulations given to candidates in their initial briefings, that it is their responsibility to inform their campaigners of the rules that should not be broken, such as the prohibition mass-emailing. In light of this, the implemented bans are correct, and no one can fault YUSU for enforcing them.
But is it fair if people completely unaffiliated with a candidates campaign send the emails out, which has been the case in many of these instances? Are the regulations themselves at fault here? Are they truly as up to date as they could be with regard to technologies that are only ever going to expand?
In 2008, two out of three Presidential candidates were banned from campaigning on Wednesday 5th March due to regulation breaches regarding Facebook. Candidates that year argued that as Facebook was a new technology to be used in the elections, there was no precedent as to how to operate campaigns with it. You might have thought that by now, thngs might have been sorted out.
And to be fair, YUSU are trying: as of 5pm Tuesday afternoon, societies will now be fined for using their mailing lists or Facebook groups to endorse any particular candidates. But how is using a mailing list to email members any different from telling people face to face about certain candidates, while at a society meeting? More times than I can count over the last week or so I’ve had second and third-years advising me how to vote. It’s been, “oh, vote for so-and-so” or “ah, don’t vote for him whatever you do”. At my various societies we’ve been talking about elections quite a bit, because let’s face it, you can’t really forget they’re going on; and every time I’m asked who I might vote for, I’m given a detailed account of why I shouldn’t vote for them, and why I shouldn’t vote for someone else. And I doubt I’m the only person who’s been having conversations like this.
Surely such conversations are no different from the mass emailing that’s prohibited; in fact, they are probably more effective in giving candidates exposure and swaying votes. The majority of people won’t vote one way because an impersonal email tells them to, but if a friend tries to persuade them to one course of action, that’s a different matter. Surely, it should logically follow that such conversations should be banned to ensure candidates are treated equally? But, of course, we can’t do that, because not only is it against freedom of speech, but the idea’s just absurd. Besides, talking about elections is vital to involving and inspiring students.
So what should be done about these problematic regulations that penalise candidates for actions not their own?
Perhaps the answer is to remove the responsibility of candidates for the actions of supporters not officially affiliated to their campaigns. If YUSU took it upon itself to inform the general student body of the election rules, instances like this would arguably not occur.
Or maybe YUSU should act to allow mass emailing. This would arguably give equality of potential exposure to candidates. On a more cynical note, if students were inundated with enough emails endorsing every single candidate several times over, as would clearly happen if such emailing were allowed, they’d soon fail to pay any attention anyway, thus levelling the playing field once more - without YUSU having to fuss around banning candidates. It is pointless for YUSU to try and control Internet campaigning. With no way of actively preventing misconduct, surely YUSU time can be better spent than struggling to do so?
As far as these bans costing candidates the elections, I find this hard to believe. If students don’t know about these candidates already, one more day of campaigning was unlikely to make much difference.
Probably as much difference as those emails made, which is ironic.
There still remains the problem of societies which aren't affiliated with YUSU or which don't receive funding from them. Examples include Club of PEP, all academic societies, CU, and even the Yorker. How can YUSU punish these groups for sending out emails on behalf of candidates. I know at least one candidate has benefited from a mass email from CU to its members and YUSU can't do anything to stop them.
Also how can you not punish the candidates for mass emails. They undoubtedly benefit from them, much more than they lose from a campaigning ban and an unscrupulous candidate could influence a society to send an email endorsing them. You can't discern between an honest mistake and a deliberate ploy for votes. I can't see how you'd solve it.
It's not about punishment.
It's about balancing the benefit they may have got from the said email.
Like #2 said, the way YUSU justify banning campaigning for an hour or two is by giving an opportunity for the others to 'catch up'. That seems fair, although I'd say the best way to sort this out is just increase awareness during elections that societies shouldn't be mass emailing.
Then again, I sort of don't see the problem of a candidate who's more dedicated to a society's particular needs reassuring that society that they'll help them if elected.
It doesn't balance any benefit! 6 hours of not campaigning will never make up for an email sent to 600 people!
There are several issues at stake; one of the big ones I think is that a private message to facebook friends is remarkably similar to talking to people that you know about the elections. I think that going into a lecture of 100 students and speaking to them (since they can't really opt-out) is worse than sending facebook messages to friends.
On the other hand, using any mailing list not designed for elections - and that includes facebook groups - should expressly be banned. If Tim used a YUSU mailing list or the Freshers facebook group to say "vote for me" then that is a complete abuse.
I think the two are completely different and shouldn't have identical punishments. But again there's still the issue of how to *avoid* the problems in the first place. I had one or two issues with campaigners last year so deliberately didn't have any this year - and that appears to have backfired as people unassociated with my campaign and who I haven't even spoken to about it are still able to penalise me. How could anyone stop it from happening unless every student was directly told the election rules in detail?
Mass emailing and talking to people is totally different.
Which candidate has the opportunity to send mail to a mailing list could make a difference to the election result, and as different candidates will have access to different lists this would be grossly unfair. As Jason points out, Tim would have access to YUSU lists. On the other hand, Jason can message all 2000 members of the Portering facebook group. This kind of emailing would mean candidates with access to mailing lists got a huge advantage.
Conversely though everyone has the opportunity to visit a society or JCRC to plug themselves, and there will be no massive disparity of opportunity for candidates to be endorsed by 2nd and 3rd years in a one on one basis.
It's all about ensuring that all candidates get the same opportunity to win peoples votes.
Plus, the mass email rule is probably partly about saving everyone from the annoyance of all the emails you'd get...
I'm not sure what's wrong with a Sports Club endorsing a particular candidate. If all Presidents had the chance to interview each candidate then reccomend to their members who'd be best for their club.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report