It shouldn’t objectively shock anyone that the rebranded One Carleton slate swept the Carleton University Students’ Association (CUSA) executive elections by large vote totals.
Regardless of whether its supporters sport purple or forest green t-shirts, the A Better Carleton/Your Carleton/One Carleton dynasty has, time and again, successfully secured the necessary bloc of voters to eke out narrow victories in past years, and landslides in this year’s case.
In this election, it was the same strategy: secure the support of their regular base of voters—which is often done through ensuring close relationships with certain campus groups, and to have a visible campaign so these voters remember you and cast their ballot. That’s done by handing out leaflets and talking to people in the University Centre Atrium. Despite the annoyance to some students, it’s a solid political strategy.
To the slate’s credit, the One Carleton coalition of voters tends to be involved in campus activities and thus most likely to vote. Many of them are members of fraternities or sororities, of which they are able to enlist some help through online messaging in getting out the vote. Others belong to clubs and societies, with the same effect.
One Carleton’s chances of winning depend greatly on rallying their people to vote rather than focusing on directly competing in a marketplace of ideas and ideologies against other slates. The slate will also throw in some political goodies, such as a renovated space or a big party, that might draw some unaffiliated voters, not to mention being another way to rally its base to vote.
Voting in groups is one of the reasons the Change slate has consistently failed to defeat One Carleton: they lack a base large enough to win, all things being equal. Add on an inability to rally up anti-CUSA discontent that was ubiquitous during the student union building referendum, and the splitting of non-One Carleton votes from well-performing independent candidates, and you have an easy victory for the folks in green.
The voting bloc strategy allows One Carleton to position itself as the slate-in-power, the party of CUSA, the slate of bureaucratic administrators. It’s the essence of its rather centrist brand: apolitical and technocratic—that those most competent managers should be calling the shots in the association above all.
This phenomenon isn’t rare. It’s Elections 101 for many political parties in Canada. But there are differences between the politics of CUSA and those of provincial and federal governments. For one, the undergraduate community is small, and even smaller if you count the number of people who vote. Elections can become nothing more than a popularity contest based on brands and close relationships, rather than one predominantly based on ideas—and not just one of managerial competence. If people already know who they’re going to vote for before examining each slate’s ideas, then the power of elections becomes irrelevant.
The short election season period also benefits the incumbent, as opposing slates struggle to disseminate their messages to the electorate.
Perhaps it would also be easier for serious criticism and deliberation if the debate lost its toxic atmosphere, where shouting is reminiscent of high school council elections. Unlike with government elections, there also isn’t a flourishing media presence or strong independent body able to scrutinize candidates at a pace fast enough that has the reputation or trust of everyone.
It’s in this system of weak electoral norms and a base of voters almost rubber-stamping them to victory, that One Carleton can thrive in and insulate itself from harm by scrutiny.
The hubristic student union building campaign is now just a past event with faded significance. Same too with Cat Kelly’s cynical appropriation of the feminist label to attack an opposing candidate.
All this could be repaired by an informed, caring, and larger electorate. But I’m not one to bet it will arrive soon.
– Photo by Trevor Swann
