The results have actually been on the ULU website for a while now... But it is disconcerting that they are refusing to post the number of votes. I had heard that only about 300 people had even registered to vote. So almost certainly less people voted in the ULU elections (with about 100,000 members) than did in the RCSU elections (with less than 3,000 members). There is something really wrong here.
You're right about the publicity but they were there the last time I looked which was a while ago. What really concerns me is that they make no announcement at all on the numbers. OK so the result was embarassingly small, and everyone knows it, but they could at least make some pretence at democracy and release the percentages /re-allocations, rounds etc. It would be nice for everyone to know the numbers that voted, but as they aren't releasing them I suppose we should just assume the worst. I actually don't believe that the number of people voting in this election is a true reflection of the numbers interested in ULU, I suspect that there has been a little incompetence in organising the election. One Question I have is, given that 300 or less people voted, what is the spending on the election per voter. My guess is that it would be in the region of several thousand pounds per voter...
1. Read probably the current issue of London Student - 150 voted, only about 450 registered to vote
2. Goldsmiths isn't near ULU, its further from the ULU Building than us. Heythrop is just a bit further (just off High St Ken)
3. No UCLU Candidate won (though a few weeks later won was elected to London Student Editor - shes very nice and seems to have a tough edge looks just like Willow from Buffy:))
4. The winners were from Goldsmiths (pres and VP Sport), Heythrop (Welfare and Student Affairs) and QM (Finance and Socs).
5. There were moves to prevent the prefered candidate bit and allow the inclusion of RON by UCLU and supported by myself and Institute of Education. The UCLU Sabbs decided not to proceed at the last minute as we obviously wouldn't have won the vote and internal UCLU politics would have eventually led to troubles for them (there were moves from the incoming UCLU F&A sabb to call a referendum at UCLU to leave ULU if the prefered candidate wasn't removed and RON added (among others) - this would have led down the road for mass votes of non-confidence in a number of senior UCLU union people
6. What is the fixation with Sam Sharpe? It does seem that the Guilds website has this quite unhealthy obsession with him..you'll be sending him flowers next and stalking him on his way to the supermarket:)
More people voted in this ULU election than any previous. Before it was only ULU council who could vote, now potentially all of London can vote which is a lot more democratic. It does though show how little respect most London students have for ULU.
A point Lorne but the other side of the coin is that under the old system more people voted indirectly for their ULU sabb. (eg. the 40 or so people at ICU council would have voted for the ICU delegates to ULU who would then have voted for the ULU sabbs. Other Colleges had college wide ballots for their delegates, so even more people voted. You might think this system is undemocratic but in reality it worked better than the current one.
It is also roughly the one used by this country (only the 650-odd MPs had a chance to "vote" or support Tony Blair as Prime Minister). They were elected by the country. Unless you live in Sedgfield or Richmond, Yorkshire you couldn't vote for a Prime Minister at the coming General Election. You can vote for an MP though...