DSU Election Regulations are often criticised for being restrictive. But how restrictive are they? In this analysis, the election regulations for sabb and exec elections in DSU and the JCRs are considered. Where it varies, the rules for electing JCR Presidents are used.
Complexity of publicity regulations is also a topic with lots of myths.
Proposers and Seconders
This is just about similar across all bodies surveyed - candidates require two proposers. Those running the election may not be a proposer. In some JCRs, but not in DSU, executive members, current incumbents (and in Collingwood, former executive members too) may not propose.
Summary: Comparable, in some cases less restrictive.
Note - DSU Council has repeatedly refused to make this section less restrictive by removing the requirement for proposers and seconders.
Campaigning
Publicity Types
DSU allows most types of publicity, with a few exclusions, usually at the SRO's discretion. The more liberal JCRs take a similar line, allowing posters and web pages, possibly forbidding a few forms, and leaving the rest as allowed at the SRO's discretion (Trevs has no always-allow or always-forbid forms, it's all at the SRO's discretion).
Aidan's implicitly forbid publicity (see below). Van Mildert only allows manifestos as publicity, Marys and Castle allow those plus a small number of calling-cards as publicity. Collingwood restricts posters to a small number of locations, and a maximum of one item/candidate/location.
Summary: Comparable to the less restrictive JCRs (about half), much less restrictive than the other half.
Negative and RON campaigns
DSU does not define explicitly whether these are allowed, however RON campaigns have been in the past and negative campaigns are not forbidden. JCRs generally forbid (either explictly or implicitly as a consequence of other rules) RON campaigns, although John's allows them within loose limits. No JCR explicitly allows negative campaigning, though a number explicitly forbid it.
Furthermore, a number of JCRs explicitly forbid the mention at all of other candidates as part of a campaign.
Summary: Negative campaigning is allowed at a level comparable to the more liberal JCRs. RON campaigning is allowed at a similar level.
Publicity limits
DSU has a distribution limit set by the SRO. It has varied in recent years between 300 and 1000 A4 sheets (or equivalent). JCRs follow various patterns.
- Aidan's: Expenditure limit implicitly defined as zero. Web pages and line-printed publicity might be okay, depending on how the rules are read.
- Mildert/Castle/Mary's: Small (Castle/Mary's) to large (Mildert) distribution limit for tightly specified publicity only.
- Grey/Cuth's: 50 A4 manifestos (Grey) or A4 posters (Cuth's) plus additional as approved by the SRO (£10 expenditure on this in Cuth's).
- John's: £10 expenditure limit.
- Collingwood: SRO-defined expenditure limit.
- Others: undefined limits
Summary: DSU has a more liberal approach than some JCRs (especially Aidan's, Castle or Mary's), and a comparable approach to Collingwood or John's. Those JCRs with undefined limits are arguably more liberal, though in the years where DSU's SRO sets a high distribution limit, not by much.
Door-to-door canvassing
The JCRs have a mix of allowing, not defining (which probably means allowing) and forbidding the practice (only a few forbid it, though a few restrict it to reasonable hours). The exception is Mary's which requires all candidates to canvass 90% of livers-in. Not all of those colleges that allow it for internal elections would allow it for DSU elections. DSU does not allow door-to-door canvassing.
Summary: Due to the number of JCRs that would not allow it anyway, DSU places a blanket ban on it. There is a possibility for derestriction to allow door-to-door canvassing in willing colleges, but this possibility was rejected by Union Meeting.
Hustings
Most organisations have very similar hustings rules - questions must be applicable to all candidates, and candidate speeches shall be followed by questions. In some JCRs but not in DSU the candidate's proposer speaks first as well. The only real exceptions to the standard procedure are Cuth's (where the candidate may not be present for the hustings speech of an opposing candidate or their proposer) and Van Mildert (where questions need not be applicable to all candidates).
Summary: Entirely comparable to most JCRs here.
Manifestos
DSU allows 500 word manifestos, along with a 100 word summary manifesto. Formatting is slightly restricted, to allow easy transfer to the web. This is comparable to other JCRs using online manifestos.
JCRs that have word limits tend to set them at 250, though some go as low as 100. Most use a size limit of 1 A4 sheet instead (Mary's uses A2, Aidan's uses A1). Formatting is generally unrestricted for those that use size limits rather than word limits (except Aidan's where the manifesto must be handwritten). University college has the most restrictive manifesto guidelines, 100 word limit, A4 size limit, must use Arial font.
Chad's JCR has no limit on manifesto size, but since they don't allow other forms of campaigning, that's reasonable.
Summary: For organisations using a word rather than a size limit, DSU's is the least restrictive word limit. Given sensible type sizes, it is also likely to be less restrictive than any A4 size limit. The formatting controls are more restrictive than those in some (but certainly not all) JCRs.
Campaign Teams
DSU allows Campaign Teams provided that they are registered with the SRO. Most JCRs leave this issue undefined, except a few that forbid them implicitly or explicitly.
Summary: One could argue that the requirement to register campaign teams is restrictive, but it is largely for the protection of the candidate (most breaches of rules this year were carried out by people independent of campaign teams). And explicitly allowing them at all is rare.
Other points of note
DSU does not allow candidates to mention their college while campaigning. This possibly is a little restrictive, on the other hand, DSU Council, made up of JCR representatives, thought it was a good idea.
Summary
DSU's election regulations are comparable to those of the less restrictive JCRs, sometimes even less restrictive. Both liberal JCRs and DSU are considerably less restrictive than the more restrictive JCRs.
Possibly DSU's election regulations could be made less restrictive by:
- Removing the ban on mentioning college. It's trivial for anyone who cares to find out, and it probably harms turnout. The argument used (at Council, when it was instituted) of disadvantaging Queen's Campus students could be largely avoided by not mentioning it on Steering publications.
- Relaxing the formatting requirements on manifestos is possible but would require a lot of work to then publish them online. A better solution that has been suggested is to also allow an A4 or A3 print manifesto.
- Removing proposers and seconders. Though Council doesn't seem to view this as restrictive and given the minimal effort required, maybe it isn't.
- Removing the size limit on normal manifestos might be reasonable. Let candidates shoot themselves in the foot by providing overly-long ones. Probably the summary limit needs keeping, though.
Other than that they already are comparable with or less restrictive than JCR regulations.
I don't remember any of the complaints made against Election Regulations in the recent sabb or conference campaign including any specific thing they prevented (except mentioning of college), so that might be enough.