Based on the recommendations of the previous electoral commission chairperson Mr. Gonahasa who recommended that the Guild constitution be amended so that guild president votes should be changed to accommodate even the smaller campuses that are made of small populations unlike the already existing campuses that have students running in their thousands so that their voice can also be heard. This he recommended basing on the need for more representation in the vote count instead of a situation of winner takes all that is being used today because it has a lot of shortfalls and inefficiencies.
He recommended that since the multiple campuses don’t have the same populations, for greater representations the election results from each campus should be converted to 25% i.e. of all the results should be multiplied and converted to contribute only 25% to the final vote count. This was to be done for all campuses so that to prevent situations where candidates concentrate on one campus that has the biggest population in the process leaving out the smaller campuses or carrying out minimal effort yet they too have problems in search of the right representation. For example if a candidate got 60 votes from Namasagali Campus out of a total of 127 students it meant that from that campus he had pulled 11.8% that would be added to his final vote tally. Then if the same candidate got 84 out of 156 votes in Nagongera campus it meant he had pulled 13.5% from Nagongera campus, then from Busitema campus if he pulled 400 out of 600 votes it meant he had pulled 16.6% from Busitema Campus and finally the results from Arapai campus if a candidate got 574 of 1500 votes he would have pulled 9.6%…..the final result then would mean that all the percentages from each campus are pulled together and added up
This would be done for all candidates and the one with the biggest percentage would then be declared guild president.
This has one advantage that it’s much easier to get a more representative guild president for all campuses instead of the mass that is being used today. This is because if a candidate campaigned in a campus and was giving more satisfactory answers for their questions, then their voice can be represented in the final vote tallying regardless of the total number of voters in that campus in comparison to the largest campus with the biggest vote count. Today if the smallest campus chose not to vote it would have no say on the final vote count because if the largest campus Arapai came out in large numbers then their votes can be can cover all the other three campuses combined and yet politically this not the voice of all the other campuses.
For example right now I can say the sitting guild president didn’t win from my campus and neither the other one or two campuses. Hence if he delayed to visit a certain campus then one can conclude that it’s out of revenge for the fact that he lost at my campus. His Excellence Jodrio won by a small margin of 80 votes after the final vote count but he lost miserably at my campus, won narrowly at his home campus and that was the trend of all his votes. But if the voting was based on the percentage system then the results should have been different and more representative to the different campuses and not the individuals. This is because different campuses are battling and grappling with different problems for example Namasagali feel marginalized from the whole guild set up while Nagongera feel stranded in the cold while Arapai and Busitema battle for supremacy yet the voting has a trend in that campuses always show faith in certain candidate. Hence the mass count system would work better in a single campus model where individuals suffer from the same problems and not one in which our issues are not the same with Nagongera.
There has also been talk of in case there is a tie in the vote count it would create problems of a re-run and we all know it’s very expensive to organise guild president campaigns in a situation where university funds come with a shortfall. This is refuted because for it to occur then candidates will have to get the same number of votes in all campuses which have never happened that thunder strikes different areas at the same time so that they emerge with the same percentages from the different campuses. This is because as time has shown at each campus, there has always emerged a winner from the very first time elections have been organised in Busitema University.
Finally this arrangement would be impeded by the fact that Busitema University is always adding more campuses to its list but this can be cared for by the inclusion of a clause that allows members to adjust the percentage accordingly to the number of operational campuses at the time. Hence I hope who ever sits in the constitutional affairs should look up on it and hopefully adopt it because I feel other campuses seem to contribute more to the vote count yet we all voting for the same person who will rule over us but our voices are lost in the crowd along the selection process of this person who will be given the mandate to rule over us………………………………………………………………