Nhan Verbis non factis

Page last updated 22/11/2023.

Together no more: a recapitulation of the 2023 MSA elections

In brief

In full(er)

For years, various tickets tried to unseat political juggernauts Together from Clayton’s Monash Student Association, and each year Mojo News rolled out the same headline: “Together again”. Together’s electoral machine, which the Labor Right participates in, became so invincible, seemingly impossible to defeat, that last year’s MSA elections were almost uncontested. But this year, the campus Labor Left and its allies under the Change ticket, along with Socialist Alternative ticket Social Justice, leveraged student anger over the MSA’s proposal that students live with students, its response to extension changes and its budget deficit to oust Together. 2023 had seen elevated political activity at Monash, with social media being weaponised to undermine support for Together and Change candidates interfering with general meetings earlier in the year including Radio Monash and WIRED.

For the first time in years, most elections were a three-way race - between Together, Change (successors of the Student Voice of the 2020-2021 elections) and Social Justice. With only Indigenous Officer and the Mental Health and Resilience Committee elected unopposed, this is a drastic change from the 2022 MSA election in which Together was the only serious ticket. When the Election Guide was released, it was clear that Together was not fully prepared for the scale of the threat it faced from the rival tickets - the Election Guide was devoid of any Together headshots and statements for every committee were missing.

The day before polls opened, a member of the campus Labor Left, but not a candidate, posted to the Monash Stalkerspace Facebook group. They urged students to vote against Together, recalling an earlier incident in which the 2023 MSA Residential Communities Officer, and Presidential candidate in the election, reported a critical Stalkerspace post relating to the MSA’s housing proposal. Under the MSA Election Regulations, controlled by Together, this is prohibited conduct. The post was quickly deleted.

However, it set the tone for Change’s strategy. On the day the election officially opened, posters appeared throughout the Clayton campus. These included attacks claiming that “Together caused a $1.5 million deficit” and “Together’s solution to the housing crisis was for you to live with your tutors”. The solution, they said - “It’s time for Change”. Many posters were torn down.

Alongside social media campaigns, the election also saw campaigners from all tickets harass students for votes in person. There were unverified reports of campaigners repeatedly breaching the Election Regulations, including handling students’ devices to submit votes. At least one formal complaint was submitted to the Returning Officer - a Social Justice campaigner allegedly instructed a voter, who did not self-identify as queer, to tick the box allowing them to vote for the Queer Officer election.

In the end, 5260 students cast their vote in this election representing 12.1% of eligible voters. Change won President, Secretary, Treasurer, Lot’s Wife, and every office bearer position except for Disabilities & Carers Officer and Women’s Officer won by Together, and Queer Officer won by Social Justice. The Monash Student Council General Representatives were split, with 2 each going to Together and Change and 1 to Social Justice.

In total, this gives Change 14 seats, a controlling majority, on the 24-seat Monash Student Council, the highest body in the MSA. In the minority will be multiple seats held by Together and Social Justice, as well as divisional presidents independent of the MSA election.

While the MSC majority won by Change and its sweep of open office bearer positions might give the illusion of a landslide, this three-way election was in fact the closest this decade. That Change won so many positions despite actually coming second on primary votes is an effect of the MSA’s majoritarian electoral system, in contrast to more proportional SRC-style systems found at some other universities.

For the Presidential election, which had results similar to most office bearer elections, on primary votes Together was first on 1806 (36%), followed by Change on 1737 (35%) and Social Justice (28%) on 1411. Following exclusion of Social Justice, 1087 votes exhausted (did not indicate any second preference), representing a 77% exhaustion rate. Of the remainder of Social Justice votes that did not exhaust, preferences overwhelmingly flowed to Change at a rate of 72%, propelling Change to narrowly overtake Together and secure the Presidency with the final two-candidate preferred vote tally being 1970 (50.9%) - 1897 (49.1%).

Queer Officer was possibly the most controversial election. In the past several years, the Rainbow Collective ticket has run unopposed. This year, however, Social Justice also contested the election, whilst Change and Together observed convention by endorsing a vote for the Rainbow Collective. On social media and on campus, Rainbow Collective and Social Justice battled over their diverging visions for the Queer Department - a safe space for the campus community as advocated by the Rainbow Collective against a political, activist and left-wing queer office.

The final result saw Social Justice take the Queer Office with 608 votes (65%) to Rainbow Collective’s 331 votes (35%). However, this result is called into question amid allegations of voter fraud encouraged by Social Justice campaigners.

Change will narrowly control the Activities Advisory Committee after Social Justice did not contest. Together will control the Mental Health and Resilience Committee after they were unopposed. No single ticket won a majority of the Student Affairs Committee, Welfare Committee, Environmental and Social Justice Committee, Creative and Live Arts Committee, Women’s Committee, and People of Colour Collective, with all three tickets represented in each.

Delegates to the National Union of Students will be 3 Together (Student Unity/Labor Right), 2 Change (National Labor Students/Labor Left), and 2 Social Justice (Socialist Alternative).

The referendum on the definition of “carer” failed despite 91% of votes in favour, as turnout was only 1.77% of eligible voters which is far below the 5% turnout required. Only Together’s how to vote suggested a Yes vote, with the other tickets ignoring the referendum altogether. That other referendum? As of 21/10/2023, the vote count is at a 49.6% Yes vote in Chisholm and Hotham is 49.1% for Yes.

The last time an incumbent ticket was overthrown was the 2017 realignment election, when Together defeated the Labor Left-backed Go ticket who had controlled the MSA for a decade. Like this time, the election before Together’s emergence had been practically uncontested. Unlike 2017, Change was the second-most popular ticket, only narrowly overtaking Together. In the year ahead, Change will have the challenge of proving it can provide a serious and competent administration for the MSA and consolidate its support among students.

In charts

Vote totals based on presidential votes, booklet covers when presidency unopposed.

2014 MSA election results 2015 MSA election results 2016 MSA election results 2017 MSA election results 2018 MSA election results 2019 MSA election results 2020 MSA election results 2021 MSA election results 2022 MSA election results 2023 MSA election results

2023 MSA election results preference flows 2023 MSA election results head to head 2023 MSA election results with abstentions

Turnout and number of candidates over time

Epilogue: the Academic Board elections

The Monash University Academic Board has two undergraduate student members, elected in alternating years. The power of Academic Board student members is not obvious, but they were prominent in 2020 with the two undergraduates running for President and Secretary on the Student Voice ticket at that year’s MSA elections. Nominations and candidate statements for the 2023 election were due the day after the 2023 MSA elections ended.

In 2023, the two sitting undergraduate members had both been elected with the backing of Together, and had both been elected MSA President in the same year they were elected to the Academic Board. Both were opposed in their Academic Board election by people who eventually became Change office bearer candidates in the 2023 MSA elections. In 2021, the Together candidate won 56% primary vote, with the single future Change candidate coming second with 19%. In 2022, the Together candidate was elected only on the final count. On primary vote, the Together candidate was first with 35%, the future Change candidate returning from 2021 second with 28%, and another future Change candidate third with 14%.

At the 2023 Academic Board election, no candidates publicly admitted their affiliation with Together after the ticket’s defeat at the MSA elections. One candidate had unsuccessfully run for an office bearer role on the Together ticket at the 2023 MSA elections and used fonts and graphic designs previously used by Together-endorsed Academic Board campaigns. However, this quasi-Together candidate used a different colour scheme and made no mention in their material of Together. Notably, their candidate statement mentioned running for “Academic Council” in the first sentence, a mistake which raised attentive eyebrows.

One other candidate had been elected to an MSA committee at the bottom of the Change ticket in 2023, but was not publicly endorsed by Change in this Academic Board election. Another was a former MSA office bearer who was elected on the Together ticket but did not run in 2023.

Turnout was 6%, compared to 12% for the 2023 MSA elections and about double the 2021 and 2022 Academic Board elections. In a crowded field of 13 candidates, the highest primary vote achieved by any candidate was 22% to the quasi-Together candidate, followed by 16% to the ex-Together candidate.

The vote count was conducted using optional preferential voting, with the count coming down to the wire requiring the elimination of all but two candidates before anybody achieved a majority of remaining votes. The final two candidates after a full distribution of preferences were the same as the top two from the primary vote, that is the quasi-Together and ex-Together candidates. Both candidates are law students and both have been active in the Law Students Society and the Progressive Law Network.

Throughout the count, the quasi-Together candidate had maintained the lead they had established in the primary vote. However, on the very final count after every other candidate had been excluded, the non-exhausting additional preferences flowed a staggering 82% to the second-placed ex-Together candidate. This huge windfall of preferences went well beyond inverting the previous margin, carrying the ex-Together candidate to a comfortable victory with 54% of the two-candidate preferred vote. By the final count, 38% of the votes had exhausted, leaving 34% for the ex-Together candidate and 29% for the quasi-Together candidate.

For the quasi-Together candidate, this would have been especially bitter. Mirroring their MSA election loss, they had clearly won the largest number of primary votes, only to be overtaken on the very last count and be defeated. Throughout the count, they had gained only 7% of the vote between their primary and the final preference distribution, whilst the ex-Together candidate more than doubled their vote with an addition 18% from preferences.

One other abnormal preference flow is found following the exclusion of the Change-aligned candidate. They were not running as a Change candidate, but after their elimination preferences flowed 36% to the ex-Together candidate compared to 8% to the quasi-Together candidate.

At a superficial level, the Academic Board elections seem much less partisan than the MSA elections with a much more subdued campaign. There was barely any on-campus campaigning, with the only postering I am aware of being for a candidate coming 7th. Ordinarily, the uninformed observer might expect preference flows to be relatively uniform, so the drastic surges towards the ex-Together candidate and against the quasi-Together candidate on particular counts appears remarkable.

In the election for Higher Degree by Research student member on Academic Board, the (appointed) incumbent was defeated, coming third out of four candidates.

2023 Academic Board vote count

Documents

See also