One of our sources, and yes we are being wilfully obtuse, has sent us leaked documents from the Oxford Union Society’s Election Tribunal.
A few months ago the office of President of the Oxford Union was contested by two candidates. Candidate X ran a slate (* see below), in contravention of the Union’s rules, and also hosted a prohibited public meeting for campaign purposes; he then went on to win the popular vote. His opponent called for his disqualification on account of the electoral malpractice. Candidate X was disqualified from the election by the returning officer and banned from ever standing for the position in future! Candidate X appealed, claiming that it was contrary to natural justice to disqualify the winner of the popular vote and that the punishment was too severe. The appeal was refused.
We think it is clear that by taking this stance the Oxford Union were making the point that the most important outcome of a presidential election is that the organisation involved retains its integrity by demonstrating that its rules are fair and are made to be followed. No one candidate is above the law.
Will EUSA follow the Oxford Union’s example? As soon as we know, you’ll know.
(* we weren’t sure what “running a slate” is – we now understand it to be campaigning in conjunction with candidates for other positions; basically forming your own ‘political party’ for the purpose of the election)
A few months ago the office of President of the Oxford Union was contested by two candidates. Candidate X ran a slate (* see below), in contravention of the Union’s rules, and also hosted a prohibited public meeting for campaign purposes; he then went on to win the popular vote. His opponent called for his disqualification on account of the electoral malpractice. Candidate X was disqualified from the election by the returning officer and banned from ever standing for the position in future! Candidate X appealed, claiming that it was contrary to natural justice to disqualify the winner of the popular vote and that the punishment was too severe. The appeal was refused.
We think it is clear that by taking this stance the Oxford Union were making the point that the most important outcome of a presidential election is that the organisation involved retains its integrity by demonstrating that its rules are fair and are made to be followed. No one candidate is above the law.
Will EUSA follow the Oxford Union’s example? As soon as we know, you’ll know.
(* we weren’t sure what “running a slate” is – we now understand it to be campaigning in conjunction with candidates for other positions; basically forming your own ‘political party’ for the purpose of the election)
3 comments:
Exactly what should have been done in the situation. Im confident EUSA will follow this example of good practice
2 blokes flyering a few people at Pollock Halls is'nt really the same as planting a 'slate'!
I think that due to farcical mud bath this years election has turned into (Coles Blog, Adam and Pollock, everyone removing everyone else’s posters, personal attacks etc) no one should be ‘crowned’ president and the fantastic and hugely competent fairly elected Vice Presidents should form a ‘Coalition President’ happy EUSA dayz again for all :)
Post a Comment