If a person is acclaimed, is it OK to say said person is elected?
June 17, 2013 9:00 PM Subscribe
ResumeFilter:
Jane MetaFilter runs for an elected office in her student government.
There are initially other candidates, but they end up dropping out of the race and as a result, Jane is the only candidate.
As a result, Jane is acclaimed to the position.
On Jane's resume, is it fair game to say that she was elected? Or must she say that she was acclaimed? Is it best to compromise -- perhaps to altogether avoid the use of "acclaimed" or "elected"?
"served as"
posted by sexyrobot at 9:05 PM on June 17, 2013 [8 favorites]
posted by sexyrobot at 9:05 PM on June 17, 2013 [8 favorites]
Is this in the US? If yes, at the very least the majority of people don't know that definition of the verb acclaim, and they'll think Jane has a typo in her resume.
posted by BlahLaLa at 9:06 PM on June 17, 2013 [12 favorites]
posted by BlahLaLa at 9:06 PM on June 17, 2013 [12 favorites]
'elected unopposed'
posted by pompomtom at 9:08 PM on June 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by pompomtom at 9:08 PM on June 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
Best answer: On a resume, Jane's accomplishments as an officer should be way more important than how she was chosen for the position. I'd say if you make a reference to the method of acquiring the position you are likely doing it wrong.
posted by grouse at 9:11 PM on June 17, 2013 [21 favorites]
posted by grouse at 9:11 PM on June 17, 2013 [21 favorites]
Seconding "served as". It's what she did in office that matters. The opponents dropping out could have been terrified of her, or lightweights, or something else could have been going on. If she had been the only person running from the beginning, that could suggest that it wasn't a valued position.
Don't let pointless ambiguity creep in. "Served as" is the right choice in a résumé. Save the details of the campaign and election for people who specifically want to know about the campaign and the election.
posted by maudlin at 9:12 PM on June 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
Don't let pointless ambiguity creep in. "Served as" is the right choice in a résumé. Save the details of the campaign and election for people who specifically want to know about the campaign and the election.
posted by maudlin at 9:12 PM on June 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
I vote that it's fair game to say elected. If Jane feels it is unethical or awkward, I'd avoid using either verb as acclaimed is not going to be understood. Served is fine, too.
posted by vegartanipla at 9:13 PM on June 17, 2013
posted by vegartanipla at 9:13 PM on June 17, 2013
You don't need to say anything about how you got there. Nobody is counting votes.
Person X was student body president, serving from Date Y to Date Z.
If you want to compare/contrast a real world example, Gerald Ford was the 38th President of the United States. He was not elected to that position.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:27 PM on June 17, 2013 [3 favorites]
Person X was student body president, serving from Date Y to Date Z.
If you want to compare/contrast a real world example, Gerald Ford was the 38th President of the United States. He was not elected to that position.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:27 PM on June 17, 2013 [3 favorites]
Why would the resume say she was "elected" or "acclaimed"? Why do you need a verb? Why not just list the position, followed by a list of what she did?
What are you considering writing? "Acclaimed President"? I would think that meant she received praise for the job she did as president.
posted by John Cohen at 9:27 PM on June 17, 2013 [2 favorites]
What are you considering writing? "Acclaimed President"? I would think that meant she received praise for the job she did as president.
posted by John Cohen at 9:27 PM on June 17, 2013 [2 favorites]
You could consider if there was an election in which she was the sole person listed on the ballot, or if the absence of opposition an election for the office was dispensed with altogether, and she received the office solely by virtue of having qualified for the ballot.
In the former case, American parlance very definitely would regard one as having been "elected" by receiving even one vote, with, as noted above, "elected unopposed" being more (but probably needlessly) specific.
In the latter case a very scrupulous person might hesitate to say she was "elected" unopposed or otherwise; if the means of obtaining office needs to be discussed, you would say something like "Unopposed Candidate."
Also as noted, "acclamation" doesn't really have the meaning in (at least) American English of winning unopposed an office with a general franchise of some sort (i.e., everyone gets to go to a ballot booth). It has the meaning in a much narrower sense of an election or selection done by a convention, caucus or other in-person gathering by overwhelming attendee preference rather than by the tallying of votes. In other words, it's a parliamentary procedure concept rather than an electoral concept. A good for example, "Although Jane was worried Tom would challenge her for the nomination for State Assembly, by the time she got to the District Caucus, Tom had decided to run for City Council instead, and Jane received the nomination by acclamation."
posted by MattD at 9:35 PM on June 17, 2013
In the former case, American parlance very definitely would regard one as having been "elected" by receiving even one vote, with, as noted above, "elected unopposed" being more (but probably needlessly) specific.
In the latter case a very scrupulous person might hesitate to say she was "elected" unopposed or otherwise; if the means of obtaining office needs to be discussed, you would say something like "Unopposed Candidate."
Also as noted, "acclamation" doesn't really have the meaning in (at least) American English of winning unopposed an office with a general franchise of some sort (i.e., everyone gets to go to a ballot booth). It has the meaning in a much narrower sense of an election or selection done by a convention, caucus or other in-person gathering by overwhelming attendee preference rather than by the tallying of votes. In other words, it's a parliamentary procedure concept rather than an electoral concept. A good for example, "Although Jane was worried Tom would challenge her for the nomination for State Assembly, by the time she got to the District Caucus, Tom had decided to run for City Council instead, and Jane received the nomination by acclamation."
posted by MattD at 9:35 PM on June 17, 2013
I have a similar such appointment or whatever from my continued adventures in undergraduate studies.
I just have the title, group, and dates listed.
posted by RainyJay at 9:36 PM on June 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
I just have the title, group, and dates listed.
posted by RainyJay at 9:36 PM on June 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
Best answer: If the election process is at all related to the position put elected. Elected officials run unopposed all the time and certainly don't make the distinction. I have helped win some elections through hundreds of hours of work just to ensure my candidates ran unopposed (it isn't nearly as shady as that sounds. I just work harder than the city hall janitor being forced to run by his boss).
Either way, putting down elected requires a single word and implies a bunch of different skills.
posted by munchingzombie at 9:45 PM on June 17, 2013
Either way, putting down elected requires a single word and implies a bunch of different skills.
posted by munchingzombie at 9:45 PM on June 17, 2013
Best answer: "Elected by acclamation" is an absolutely standard phrase which I've seen in many contexts:
In Canada, a candidate for a parliamentary, legislative or municipal position is said to be elected by acclamation if he or she has no opponents for the seat...posted by jamjam at 9:53 PM on June 17, 2013
balloting failed to produce the required majority. In the 2000 book Angels and Demons Ventresca is elected by acclamation before he burns himself to death...
"Elected by acclamation" is an absolutely standard phrase
Yes, the point being that "elected" is appropriate. I had never heard of "acclaimed" to mean "eleted by acclamation."
posted by John Cohen at 9:56 PM on June 17, 2013
Yes, the point being that "elected" is appropriate. I had never heard of "acclaimed" to mean "eleted by acclamation."
posted by John Cohen at 9:56 PM on June 17, 2013
I had never heard of "acclaimed" to mean "eleted by acclamation."
The OP's question doesn't make it clear, but the use of acclaim in this context means to publicly declare that someone has some quality. "I acclaimed Natalie Portman to be the most beautiful woman" etc.
posted by dfriedman at 10:04 PM on June 17, 2013
The OP's question doesn't make it clear, but the use of acclaim in this context means to publicly declare that someone has some quality. "I acclaimed Natalie Portman to be the most beautiful woman" etc.
posted by dfriedman at 10:04 PM on June 17, 2013
Just list the title and dates served. I don't think I've ever seen a resume that mentioned how the person got the office.
posted by gingerbeer at 10:07 PM on June 17, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by gingerbeer at 10:07 PM on June 17, 2013 [2 favorites]
avoidance of the passive voice is generally recommended (I see what I did there).
A pretty good test I learned recently is that if you can say "by zombies" after the verb phrase, it's passive.
So, Jane was elected (or acclaimed) by zombies....suggests that it should go.
Choose the more active verb, "served," or better still, give the title and then include her accomplishments as active verbs (planned, organized, re-structured, whatever).
posted by bilabial at 10:25 PM on June 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
A pretty good test I learned recently is that if you can say "by zombies" after the verb phrase, it's passive.
So, Jane was elected (or acclaimed) by zombies....suggests that it should go.
Choose the more active verb, "served," or better still, give the title and then include her accomplishments as active verbs (planned, organized, re-structured, whatever).
posted by bilabial at 10:25 PM on June 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
Agree, avoid using a verb altogether. Doesn't matter. You should aim for your CV to be as short as possible and also avoid the passive voice as much as possible. "Acclaimed"/"Served as"/whatever adds extra words and is passive.
example: 2002 - 2003: Class president
For your jobs, would you consider putting in front of a role "Chosen from a pool of 235 initial candidates, shortlisted to 10 candidates, selected after second interview from choice of two candidates"? Nope. Neither should you for this.
posted by Athanassiel at 10:25 PM on June 17, 2013
example: 2002 - 2003: Class president
For your jobs, would you consider putting in front of a role "Chosen from a pool of 235 initial candidates, shortlisted to 10 candidates, selected after second interview from choice of two candidates"? Nope. Neither should you for this.
posted by Athanassiel at 10:25 PM on June 17, 2013
I agree with Athanassiel, except that "served as" is active, not passive. But you still shouldn't use it or say anything about how you ended up holding any of your positions. The interviewer can always ask about it in the interview, if it's relevant.
posted by John Cohen at 10:31 PM on June 17, 2013
posted by John Cohen at 10:31 PM on June 17, 2013
Whoops, yes, "served as" is past tense. Still unnecessary words though.
posted by Athanassiel at 10:58 PM on June 17, 2013
posted by Athanassiel at 10:58 PM on June 17, 2013
Best answer: Just a transatlantic note FWIW that elected by acclamation isn't commonly used in the UK, whereas elected unopposed is.
posted by prentiz at 12:00 AM on June 18, 2013
posted by prentiz at 12:00 AM on June 18, 2013
In UK student elections at least, theres usually a "reopen nominations" category which allows a bit more legitimacy to unopposed candidates, as the voters did have a different choice.
posted by Cannon Fodder at 1:14 AM on June 18, 2013
posted by Cannon Fodder at 1:14 AM on June 18, 2013
Was there no line for write-in candidates on the ballot that elected Jane?
posted by radwolf76 at 3:01 AM on June 18, 2013
posted by radwolf76 at 3:01 AM on June 18, 2013
Being class, or group, president is a nice cherry on top of a good resume, but it doesn't make a bad resume prettier. It just looks awkward. Try not to make this the focus, because popularity is rarely a useful job skill. A simple listing as in Athanassiel's example may suffice; if necessary, tout the accomplishments in career skill form, e.g.
Hort Club President, 2011-2012; managed installation of 400 sq. ft. planting bed at campus entrance, including coordination of contractors; receiving shipments from vendors; and training of volunteers.
That is what the interviewer is going to be interested in, the stuff that got done.
The only times I can think of that how someone got into a college-years office involve politicians for whom they are seen as formative events, e.g. Wisconsin's Gov. Walker was sanctioned for violating the student government campaign materials rules, which some consider relevant to his style of governance in public office. But even Obama is barely known for being president of the Harvard Law Review (is that it?), let alone how he got that position, though some right-wing sources have tried to make something out of it. It's been a while since one of these stories was a real positive for a candidate, is one way of seeing this.
posted by dhartung at 3:08 AM on June 18, 2013 [1 favorite]
Hort Club President, 2011-2012; managed installation of 400 sq. ft. planting bed at campus entrance, including coordination of contractors; receiving shipments from vendors; and training of volunteers.
That is what the interviewer is going to be interested in, the stuff that got done.
The only times I can think of that how someone got into a college-years office involve politicians for whom they are seen as formative events, e.g. Wisconsin's Gov. Walker was sanctioned for violating the student government campaign materials rules, which some consider relevant to his style of governance in public office. But even Obama is barely known for being president of the Harvard Law Review (is that it?), let alone how he got that position, though some right-wing sources have tried to make something out of it. It's been a while since one of these stories was a real positive for a candidate, is one way of seeing this.
posted by dhartung at 3:08 AM on June 18, 2013 [1 favorite]
"elected" is fair. It was a process determined by an election. If no one else carried the process of running all the way through, it means:
a) the person was considered an unbeatable candidate.
b) it was an office no one else wanted badly enough.
But regardless, if others could have been nominated when the election was called, it's still an election.
posted by randomkeystrike at 6:20 AM on June 18, 2013
a) the person was considered an unbeatable candidate.
b) it was an office no one else wanted badly enough.
But regardless, if others could have been nominated when the election was called, it's still an election.
posted by randomkeystrike at 6:20 AM on June 18, 2013
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by carmicha at 9:03 PM on June 17, 2013 [3 favorites]