One might think that after not one, but two elections, students could confidently say that the Rideau River Residence Association has a new executive for next year. However, it seems that, as it’s been for the majority of these elections, the deciding factor of the election could be the constitutional board rather than the ballot boxes.
Though A New RRRA won the last election in vote count, they also received a number of new electoral violations following election day, all of which are the result of harassment complaints from students. These new electoral violations have led team United to appeal the results of the election, instead claiming that A New RRRA should be disqualified, and the election given to United, who placed second.
This is a recipe for voter disenfranchisement and— regardless of the victor— the legitimacy of the executives, as well as the reputation of RRRA in the eyes of the administration will be severely tarnished.
In A New RRRA’s defence, they have appealed every violation they have received. However, refusing to accept responsibility for every one of the many violations they were awarded reflects poorly on their slate as a whole, and calls the credibility of these appeals into question. It could very well be that a number of these violations should be repealed, but to argue that every last one of them was unjust seems utterly ridiculous.
United, on the other hand, could well have a case against A New RRRA. However, simply imagine the mess that RRRA would be in if after two elections, the final winners were to be disqualified. When students rely on the RRRA executives to advocate on their behalf, it is of utmost importance that their legitimacy cannot be called into question.
At this point, it seems to be a lose-lose situation for the association. I trust the constitutional board to rule on these issues fairly, but they can only do so much to undo the damage done to RRRA.
A Charlatan editorial pointed out the flaws in RRRA’s current electoral system, stating that the convoluted, irregular electoral system has resulted in students “losing faith in the association.”
With this editorial, the Charlatan’s editorial board displayed a stronger concern for the well-being of Carleton’s residence association than many of those who are involved in it.
The editorial points to a flawed electoral system as the root of RRRA’s woes, and in doing so it brings up a very good point. But while RRRA’s electoral system should be seriously reformed, the responsibility should also rest on the candidates themselves to assure that their actions are truly in the best interests of the associations and its members. This, unfortunately, has not been the case.
The constitutional board’s decision will essentially be an attempt to strike a balance between respecting the rules, and respecting the will of the voters. It’s important to abide by the rules and respect the process. However, running to the constitutional board whenever a decision doesn’t go your way does little to improve the reputation of RRRA, and certainly does little to make voters feel enfranchised.
Until candidates begin acting with the best interests of the association in mind, the RRRA elections will continue to be decided by the constitutional board, rather than the ballot box.
— Luke Bradley,
second-year journalism
