For part one, click here.
In my last post, I went over a few problems with the electoral system at Carleton. I spoke about the lack of clear limits to the Chief Electoral Officer’s powers, and the lack of consistency in upholding the rules. I also spoke about the ambiguity regarding campaign workers. In this post, I will give a few more problems, and highlight some changes I plan to implement by the time elections roll around in 2012.
CUSA elections have for a while now included two live debates between the executive slates. Under the electoral code, there is also supposed to be a radio debate, but I have never heard it, and nobody pays much attention to it. These debates are sorry excuses for debates. I counted precisely two independent students ask questions to the exec candidates at the debates. Under its current format, both sides fill the atrium with their supporters to ask “questions” to the candidates that are most times either texted to them, or written on a piece of paper. The independent formation of opinions does not exist at these debates. So naturally, the average Carleton student just walks by, or as one student texted me, gets really annoyed at the noise disrupting their class time.
How do I plan to change that? First, the entire format would need a revamping. Instead of having the interrogators line up, gender parity-based, to ask their questions one by one for each executive candidate, questions will be submitted beforehand to the CEO who will act as an actual moderator and will be the one asking the questions. There will also be the addition of a new feature. Instead of a mad rush to get back in line, people in attendance will be selected on a lottery basis which would randomize who is asking questions. Also, instead of single positions, the candidates will be paired, president and vice-president (student issues); vice-president (student life) and (student services); vice-president (internal) and (finance). These pairs come about because of the overlapping nature of the portfolios. This would cut down the number of times we’ll have to hear about the plans for clubs funding or public transit questions for instance. By streamlining the debates, students can get more out of them.
Another area where there is huge room for improvement is the nomination process. For council candidates, one has to get twice as many signatures as there are seats in your faculty. So a computer science candidate needs two signatures, while an arts and social sciences candidate needs 14. Executive candidates need 100 signatures for their nominations. Students are bombarded with dozens of potential candidates seeking their signatures on their nomination forms, yet these candidates cannot divulge what they plan to do, nor can they tell the students why they should sign their nomination forms. This is a complete waste of time for both the students who are being harassed, and the candidates seeking nominations. This process should be replaced with a simpler system. A candidate nomination form would be similar to the cover page currently in use, with the addition of a space for one signature from an eligible constituent, 10 for executives, and your own signature. That’s it. There will also be greater leeway with allowing candidates to express why they’re running, and even divulge bits of their platforms earlier than currently allowed.
The other thing that should change is how councillors run. The rules say that council candidates run independently. What happens is that transparency suffers due to this rule. Officially they can’t be seen as on a slate, but when you have candidates using essentially the same poster, it is hard to not assume they are running as a slate, because, they are. Both slates have their hand picked cadre of councillors who they would like to be on council with, yet neither side can say it, and students do not know what they are getting. This is pure deception of the voting population, and it has to stop. That is why the updated electoral code would allow councillors to declare support for a particular slate, so everybody knows where they stand. If they want to run as a slate of council candidates, that should be allowed as well.
Previous electoral rulings have restricted the use of technology in elections. This is the second decade of the 21st century. Social media is king in today’s society. Over 500 million people are on Facebook alone. CUSA elections however, are stuck in this pre-technology era. The updated electoral code to be proposed to council in the early months of the new term, would reflect today’s world. Candidates will be able to make full use of social media to engage students. The justification given for the restrictions is that the CEO needs to be able to monitor the candidate’s activity. I’m sorry, but we’re all adults here, and this isn’t George Orwell’s 1984. We don’t need someone watching over us. Candidates are supposed to be responsible for their actions. Combined with a declared list of workers, there would be no need for the CEO to act as “big brother.” Candidates should be allowed to use whatever means they see fit to reach out to potential voters. If they break Canadian laws, slander, or defame another, it will be brought to the CEO’s attention as has always been the case, so there is no need for them to be watching over each page.
The Charlatan videos were a good start, but with the way they are categorized, it can be cumbersome to find the candidates videos on there. So allowing each candidate to create their own videos, in their own way, would be a great way to add some flare, and also help candidates stand out. All candidates are not made equal, and thus they should not have to use the same videos, but should have the freedom to campaign as they see fit.
Overall, the electoral code is a flimsy document that needs massive changes in order to be ready for the 21st century. By making some adjustments to the process, and eliminating some areas, CUSA elections can once again be interesting and engaging to the student populace. We just might see more than 15 per cent of the student body come out to vote.