In last year’s CUSU elections, 13.1% of the student body voted. The majority of people don’t care about CUSU elections.

It doesn’t matter, really, whether what CUSU are actually doing is important, or good; half of their job is persuading the student body of why they exist, and they aren’t doing it very well.

Unions exist primarily, if not solely, to represent their members. The success of CUSU, then, can be judged on how accurately and effectively it has done that for Cambridge students. By this measure – as by most measures – CUSU has failed.

Its staff, and particularly its sabbatical officers, are seen as layabouts who are being paid through another year of degreeless university, or part of an undemocratic, dull, vile and vulgar process of JCR to CUSU to NUS to safe seated MP.

Not everything CUSU does is bad, of course: the women's campaign and the disabled students campaign stick up for students who haven't previously had their voices heard. Access do noble, if not always effective, work. Welfare is excellent, but only becomes conspicuous when you need it. There's a risk of CUSU looking ineffective because much of their work is with and for those who don't hold much sway in deciding student opinion.

Much of CUSU's problems aren't their fault; in many cases, they are simply circumvented, and the horizontal organisation that social networks allow has made this all the easier. There’s a broad (and justified) feeling of discontent and disaffection with elected representatives in the UK at the moment, in particular for students towards the NUS, and in many cases CUSU have fallen victim to that.

This year didn’t begin well for CUSU – in November of last Michaelmas, Corpus Christi JCR voted to disaffiliate from the union after mounting frustrating on the part of Corpus undergraduates and members at the cost of membership, and the quality of the service they received in return. Members were particularly frustrated at the ineffectual representation when Corpus against their ‘second-rate’ treatment by the college. The affiliation fees paid to CUSU often make up a large part of JCR’s budget; the president and CUSU’s officers must ensure that they can justify this cost.

The most obvious, and perhaps the most effective, demonstration of student will was in the occupation – something that CUSU, at first, didn’t have anything to do with. They released statements, and joined in, but the point was clear: students were perfectly adept at representing themselves. They were erasing the middleman between University, staff, and students.

However, in response to the occupation, CUSU were left with a choice: support the occupiers (who were doing what CUSU should have been, and opposing cuts) but risk alienating a good proportion of students who were either anti- or apathetic towards the Occupation, or condemn them, and leave themselves in an awkward and slightly untenable position with respect to the movement against cuts and fees.

In the event, CUSU went for the middle and alienated themselves from both.

The next year one will be an equally, if not more, tough one for the incoming president. The full effect and damage of cuts and fees has not yet been felt. Teaching will undoubtedly suffer, as will students’ provision more generally. Access will need to up their efforts to ensure that – despite costing £9000 a year – Cambridge University still looks like a desirable, and achievable, goal.

Whoever wins on Thursday, this will be their challenge: justifying to students and the public why CUSU, Cambridge, and universities exist.