Communication was the buzzword of the 2012 Elections, appearing in most manifestos, and nearly every campaign speech (I say this as someone who sat through most of them!) What did this mean to the candidates? E-mails, Twitter, blogs, Facebook, v-blogs, podcasts: this was a year in which the internet was at the forefront.
Candidates considered internet presence a crucial part of their campaign, and anyone with a Facebook account was inundated with campaign pledges, messages, posts and status updates. Considering the postering ban and the strict rules on personal campaigning, the web seemed a logical solution. It’s easy to respond quickly to events, access many voters and, most importantly for the tightly budgeted candidates, it’s free.
Though it may have seemed annoying at times, internet campaigning was a democratic boon for voters too. It allowed candidates to access more of us than they ever could by trawling campus.
Yet, despite the importance of the web, the YUSU Election rules on electronic and online campaigning were brief and ambiguous. In fact, two online bans, both to Presidential candidates, were handed out during elections fortnight; one 24hr internet ban to Kallum Taylor and a full online ban four days before the polls closed to James Carney.
Candidates, according to election rules, are responsible for any rule-breaking done by their supporters. Neither candidate in these cases broke the rules themselves; both were penalised for the methods used by those acting on their behalf. It seems a lot to ask of candidates that as well as campaigning they must control all who endorse them too. The rules themselves also are very misleading, particularly with regards to social networking. They dictate that “any campaigning must, in principle, be visible to all YUSU voters”. The example given is that posting on walls of ‘open’ pages is allowed but not ‘closed’ pages. Therefore, if taken literally, even supporting your favourite candidate in a status update or tweet would be against the rules.
Neither the returning officer, nor the candidate themselves can police the internet and the penalties for breaking the rules are not clearly laid out either. Carney’s ban in particular seems inordinately harsh considering he himself didn’t commit the offence in question.
With the continual use of the internet, the rules must be looked at again to ensure against claims of foulplay on behalf of innocent unsuspecting candidate.