Association president race too close to call

4

The race for Association president is too close to call, according to the second poll conducted by The Saint for the 2014 YourUnion election of sabbatical candidates.

Voters starting to ‘Trust Dave’

Before campaigning started, our poll indicated that Pat Mathewson was in an early lead with over 50 per cent of the overall vote. However, a new poll on The Saint’s website of 228 people now shows that Mr Mathewson’s lead has slipped to 43 per cent of the overall vote (97 participant votes), with fellow candidate and Mr Mathewson’s flatmate, David Patterson, now only marginally behind with 39 per cent of the vote (90 participant votes). 4 per cent of participants indicated that their first preference would be to reopen nominations.

If these results are replicated in the election, no candidate would have enough votes after the initial distribution to win outright. Second preference votes of the candidate with the least votes would then be transferred to the remaining candidates until one candidate has reached the 50 per cent mark.

Noah Ohringer has increased his share of the overall vote to 14 per cent(33 participant votes), despite his refusal to participate in a video interview with The Saint. Mr Ohringer explained his decision with the phrase “diamonds are forever”, and stated “part of my campaign is to do my best not to annoy people”.

Complete results

Association president

Pat Mathewson: 43%
David Patterson: 39%
Noah Ohringer: 14%
RON: 4%

Director of representation

Ondrej Hajda: 56%
Ali West: 30%
RON: 14%

Director of student development and activities

Fay Morrice: 83%
RON: 17%

Director of events and services

Leon O’Rourke: 41%
Lewis Harding: 38%
Adetola Akanbi-Onasanya: 9%
Campbell Anderson: 7%
RON: 5%

AU president

Sarah Thompson: 43%
Cathy Pendreigh: 15%
Jeremy Hipps: 13%
Andrew Van Kralingen: 11%
RON: 19%

4 COMMENTS

  1. The full quote was “diamonds are forever, so is youtube.” I would rather that people come see and hear me in person.

  2. Once again, you use ridiculously small sample sizes to come to some big conclusions (ie. drugs survey). 228 votes as a sample size is hardly representative of the student body.

    • Precisely! That sample size may have worked if it was a sample randomly selected from all students in the university, but in this case it is only representative of students who decide to take part in the poll. This is quite the self-selection bias and cannot be generalised to the entire student population!

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.