In the recent Carleton University Students’ Association (CUSA) election, the elections office gave out a number of violations for some electoral offenses—but not for other ones.
The role of the elections office in the CUSA elections is to be a bridge between students and the electoral process. The office should make the process accessible and transparent to both candidates and the voting population to ensure impartiality. This year however, the office was not transparent in the way it conducted its business.
The violations process was obscure and unclear. When asked by The Charlatan for further clarifications on some electoral violations, the CUSA elections office simply declined to comment on the record time and time again.
Students are then left with the vague explanations provided to justify the decisions of the elections office.
For example, Change’s Kenneth Aliu’s violation made reference to The Charlatan’s livestream of the CUSA debate, yet inspection of our video alone is inconclusive. Another complaint found One Carleton’s Alexis Oundu was campaigning in residence, which is not allowed, yet she did not receive a violation.
Moreover, many instances required the elections office to interpret rules. This is not the fault of the elections office itself, but is rather an inherent flaw in the way CUSA elections are run. The rules should be firm and never up to interpretation.
A more transparent office and a clearer electoral code would have cleared up students’ confusion with how the process works, and instilled more confidence in the system and the results of the election. Instead, some students remain skeptical of the system that governs them, and the process by which it does.
