On January 31st at around 6:00 PM, from the steps of House 6, the candidates for President of the Trinity College Dublin Student Union (TCDSU) were announced. Seán Thim O’Leary, Patrick Keegan, and Giovanni Li were set to contest the race. On February 18th, an Instagram account appeared: @rononpres. RON refers to the option to “reopen nominations”, available on all ballots in TCDSU elections. The Instagram stated “There is no viable candidate in the TCDSU/AMLCT presidential race for 25/26”. RON was consequently cemented as the fourth (unofficial) candidate.
In the wake of RON’s emergence, @rononpres gained more Instagram followers than any other candidate, were the subject of an “emergency debate” from the College Historical Society (the Hist), splashily graced the front page of the Piranha, and burst into Trinity’s collective consciousness. On 23rd February, Trinity News released the results of their annual week-long poll for first choice preferences: 19.82% for RON. On 25th February, Trinity News published a 24-hour “snap poll”: 54% for RON.
On 28th February, results were announced upstairs at LoSt LaNe. TCDSU elections use the single transferable vote (STV) system, meaning, this election would likely go to multiple counts. The total valid poll was 3,214 votes.
After a period of nervous waiting interspersed by electoral celebrations of the six other sabbatical officers, the first count was announced by TCDSU Education Officer Eoghan Gilroy. RON led with 38.12% of first-preference votes. Li was eliminated. The room was charged. O’Leary’s hands flew to their head in shock, Keegan stood resigned, and Li mournfully shrugged. Most union members in attendance expressed they had voted RON, but restrained themselves beyond furtive glances and hushed exchanges. However, the spirit of dissent was palpable.
On count 2, RON’s lead over O’Leary was closing, and Keegan was eliminated. “Seán or RON” reverberated through the walls and floors. As people nervously shuffled, anxious discussions about “candidate-to-candidate transfers” and the mechanics of STV dotted the prevailing “I’m buying a drink” consensus.
On count 3, Gilroy cleared his throat and struggled to hush the rowdy spectators. He announced “Re-Open Nominations has received 1,310 votes”, continuing, to a suddenly silent crowd, “Seán Thim O’Leary received 15–” immediately cut off by a roaring, eclectic, response. O’Leary was TCDSU president-elect, defeating RON.
O’Leary’s campaign manager, junior sophister PPES student Eoin Connolly, pronounced “We completely flipped it.” He elaborated, “We won, not necessarily decisively, but certainly clearly (…) you cannot ask for much more in an STV [single transfer vote] election.” He attributed the traction RON gained to “a response to the radical wave in the union that was going to lull at some point”. Connolly resolved that the TCDSU had seen “activist-type people” in charge for the last two years (as opposed to the more service-based approach of O’Leary), and “the realisation that that was coming to an end” sparked the RON campaign.
Senior fresher English and Sociology student Amy Kennedy, the RON campaign manager, disagreed. She argued “It’s not fair to say that regardless of who ran, there would’ve been a RON. The candidates were at fault, there’s been good recent leadership and a bad outlook going forward.” Presidential candidate Giovanni Li echoed these sentiments, calling the candidate spread “controversial” continuing, “A SocDem [O’Leary], a Sinner [Keegan], and a first-year [Li].”
Patrick Flynn, a senior sophister environmental science student, who was going to run for president if RON had succeeded, called RON’s success “a clear declaration of wanting more.” He explained that he initially didn’t run because “it wasn’t apparent that students wanted a more radical fighting movement on campus.” Kennedy agreed, stating “that level of unprecedented success showed there was an interest in a radical union, and a union for students”.
While Kennedy made it clear that the RON campaign was started by “radical leftist students”, not all RON voters agreed. An anonymous member of Freedom 4 Students (a group advocating for the right to opt out of TCDSU) stated that RON’s popularity in the election proved that “many students are dissatisfied with the overtly performative and political acts that the SU orchestrates.” Senior fresher PPES student James Ryan, the chair of Trinity People Before Profit, however, put it succinctly: “RON happened because the candidates failed to show the passion or dedication not only to fulfill their own manifestos but to form a cohesive vision for the union.”
While there is apparent irreconcilable disagreement across the board as to why RON garnered so much support so quickly, it is abundantly clear that the RON campaign was a campaign of passion. All stakeholders identified the fiery and intense essence of the RON campaign, representing a stark contrast from the original three candidates’ campaigns.
Kennedy described the campaign itself as a “community”. She laughed, “the RON campaign was a bit of drama, a bit of gossip, a bit of mystery.” She explained that the RON campaign connected with the student body, continuing “if you are disconnected from the student body, you can’t represent the student body.” Flynn called the movement “spontaneous (…) we even felt it through our phone screens [referring to the Trinity News Snap Pool].” Flynn continued “People got their hopes up, like, maybe people do really want a bit of passion, or a bit of bold energy”. Li similarly characterised the RON campaign as an outburst as a mass intensity among students. However, he likened it to “a disease that was spreading.” Li expressed “when many students have that collective idea, it can become something more violent, mischievous, even malevolent.”
Connolly more specifically referenced the RON community: “those people need to stay in the Union, they make the Union better.” He explained that “highlighting shortcomings” is crucial. Li agreed, stating that the RON campaign “raised legitimate concerns” though adding “I do not believe the way they did it was correct.”
Hist Auditor Tom Francis, architect of the “This House Would Vote RON for President” emergency debate shared his reasoning, clarifying that the debate happened because of “important and organic conversations happening on campus” continuing “The Hist sees it as important to have these conversations.” Francis referred to RON’s 10-point-lead over O’Leary on the first count, explaining “when people had a strong preference, they voted RON.” Continuing, he said “people who didn’t care as much and saw candidates as fine or bearable ranked them.” RON’s first count lead shows an outpouring of enthusiasm, while Seán’s victory represents a voter consensus.
The RON campaign itself raises broader questions about how TCDSU’s structures and campaign rules allowed a situation where no presidential candidate was suitable for a large proportion of the voting population. Francis said that “TCDSU’s engagement with societies is generally quite poor, especially given their budget.” As far as elections, he cited that candidates cannot endorse one another, share platforms, do negative campaigning, or speak in debate formats.
Kennedy also took issue with the SU’s ability to bring in new students, saying “the union needs to focus a lot on student engagement, even with the notably high voter turnout, it was still 3,351 of 22,000.” She continued, “there’s an in-group out-group thing. People need to go up to non-Union people at events and say ‘Hi!’. Sit with people.” Kennedy said the Union needs to show people why they should care, because many “see it as a group of Arts Block students who want to feel important.”
Flynn blamed the structure of the union, arguing that “the most productive reflection is to consider how best to navigate that undeniable tendency towards narrowing the scope of participation in student politics, activism, and the problems we face as a college community.” He added “The SU does not compel wide participation or self activity among students.” Li referenced a “natural cliqueness” in the SU, “if you don’t agree, you will be burned for it.” Connolly shared “You could argue that the way the union does things pushes people out, but we are not an outlier in Ireland.”
The consensus among those involved is that student engagement is a problem with the TCDSU. This fact, paired with the runaway engagement the RON campaign saw, is significant. RON pushed everyone to passion
Connolly’s moment of dedication came the night the Trinity News snap poll came out “It was doom and gloom for maybe an hour.” And then, “I was more committed than I ever had been.” He proceeded to explain the creation of the response video from O’Leary’s campaign “Seán and I wrote it in the middle of the night, recorded it until 1 AM, edited it until 2 AM.”
Flynn also fed off the energy of RON, despite its failure and the consequential impossibility of his campaign “I’m optimistic.” Continuing “That critical stance is necessary regardless.” Ryan agreed, preaching “I oppose in my heart and mind, and to the hour of my death, all jesters, falsifiers, and betrayers.”
Kennedy, however, was the most emboldened. “This college has existed for hundreds of years, and hopefully will exist for hundreds more.” “I feel honestly quite hopeful.” “I’m excited to see what that contingent of students can do, and I am determined to do a good job. There are a shitload of students that deserve to be represented, and they deserve to have a union that fights for them. I am going to continue fighting for them.”
There is perhaps no one who better understands the electricity of the RON campaign than attendees of the Hist’s “All Art is Useless” debate. Amy Kennedy, on opposition, guitar in hand, sang a rendition of Pete Seeger’s “Solidarity Forever”. As she captured the audience in a moment of undeniable collective effervescence, she ended: “Solidarity forever, Solidarity forever, Solidarity forever, for the union Pres, vote RON.”
