Ridge Elections: The Visionary Won?!

It’s not often that this happens, but it did. Two people were competing for the elections, and the progressive visionary won against the conservative. I’ve been to two other elections where the exact same trend occurred in reverse — I was running for the PSSOC presidency with a highly progressive agenda, and I lost. Maryam at the History Society elections this year also had a clear progressive plan, but lost as well. So — what gives?

Image temp suspended

At the Ridge elections, [candidate] was running against Pei Yee. Pei Yee was obviously the conservative choice, she didn’t have any big plans. However, I could see that she was quite people oriented and easily likable. From the time I got there, she was bouncy and lively, and helped arranged the room. She seemed quite knowledgeable and competent as an editor – she had some relevant insights and wanted to streamline the process to make an already good magazine better.

On the other hand, I had to ask who [candidate] was. He wasn’t physically or characteristically remarkable. His campaign speech dwelled a lot on his previous experience in leadership and management. He also asked his colleagues at the Ridge about his performance, which obviously wasn’t stellar. Furthermore, the former editor Yati complicated matters by stating that we’re electing the people, not the ideas… when [candidate]’s second half of the campaign was about the newspaper. But at least he had his newspaper. He had a strong vision for the Ridge.

We can see that Pei Yee was the “safe” choice, and [candidate], the “risky” one. [candidate] performed worse than I thought during hustings. I was very tempted to vote for Pei Yee, because there were too many “ifs” with [candidate].

Nevertheless, [candidate] won. I know that in the History Society general election there was a fixed voting bloc, i.e. a coalition of voters — and I feel that [candidate] somewhat had a voting bloc too. I probably lost my elections because I didn’t have a voting bloc and my competitor did because he began talking to other people running in the society too. I probably failed to realise this, but securing every vote at a small election counts.

Perhaps the crowd also counts. This is the Ridge, and I observe a general trend of idealism of the people there. I didn’t see it in PSSOC (strangely enough for a PS crowd) or HISSOC. Maybe that led a sufficient number of idealistic types to vote for him.

One thing I observed about people who run with progressive agendas tend to be “principled” than “people-centric”. The three of us also don’t seem to have that people-driven thing going on with us. I identify with his “too outcomes-oriented” kind of person. [candidate] was talking about his father’s advice about being such a person who had values, and would quit if he lost the committee. Maryam and I had “principles” too. Observing these elections, I think that if you believe in your vision of progress, you must be willing to go beyond your principles to secure your victory.

That means that you have to think on the edge of political shrewdness. One thing Dr. Maass said in class, if you’re proactive, then you get to determine the agenda. I admit, I wasn’t proactive enough in my campaigning. I had the ideas, I wrote a good 6000 word manifesto, I talked to freshies, but I didn’t even win by a narrow margin. First thing, you need a voting bloc. You need to approach those who are going to run for positions as well and arrange for a mutual pact. It’s even better if your pact-partner is not contested, then you’ve got a guaranteed +1 vote on your side.

Secondly, you need a running mate or a campaign manager. If there are 49 other voters, how are you going to convince them? You can delegate people who have a lower priority to your manager (those whom you know you have in the bag), then meet the other voters yourself to win the swing.

Thirdly, don’t tell people how much work you’re going to give out. People generally don’t like work. If you have plans, give some idea of what you want to do, but don’t tell details or you’ll scare the hell out of them.

Lastly, charm the voters with everything you can. If you are an outcomes-oriented person, you have to transcend that self-limitation at least once for the election. Offer food. Buy drinks. Smile more. Give stickers. Pander. Do anything you possibly have to to make sure we secure the progress for society and show that you are flexible. That’s why a campaign manager is good, he or she can give advice and handle part of the charm.

As a final word, I would like to say that elections are inherently existential. There are a hundred ways to get it right and several thousand more ways to get it wrong. All the way from declaring your candidature to the end of the elections, a candidate has to be careful of what he or she says, how he appears, whether he makes an appearance, what are his campaign strategies… and yet there seems to be no right way, no apparent indicator of performance to take for granted. Voting’s the same too. South Park made a point by saying “voting is always between a giant douche and a turd sandwich” — there’s usually no obvious guide for picking one candidate over another.

If you’re running for anything, good luck. Don’t let the dream die because of your weaknesses. It’s going to be difficult, but if you believe in progress, give ‘em hell.

Edit 03 March: As of the publishing of this post, the person I referred to as the “visionary” has been requesting that this post be taken down. I see no justifiable reason or a breach of ethics for taking down this post. However, I shall humour this person’s request for ‘privacy’ and no longer shall disclose his personal name. It’s not difficult to find out who it is. Now in retrospect, maybe I should have voted the other way.