Photo Illustration: Ryan Bromsgrove

MORE CHOICE Let’s not have a repeat of last year’s election.

This year’s SU elections need competition

Adrian Lahola-Chomiak
Gateway Writer

Feb 01, 2012

An election should be like a trip to the supermarket. I should be able to browse the fruits and vegetables, toss away the bruised ones and choose that one perfect apple way at the back which has a reasonable vision for the other produce and the leadership skills to get them there. Unfortunately, the Students’ Union executive election at the university last year was more reminiscent of shopping at a Soviet food dispensary than your local Save-On foods.

In that election, only one executive position was contested. Candidates ran campaigns out of courtesy since the only opponent they were facing was the voter apathy/none of the above double bill. What we got cannot in the truest sense of the word have been called a democratic election. It could be more aptly described as a sign-up sheet.

None of this is the fault of those candidates. Unfortunately, our student government system did not attract people to participate. Despite the reasonable paycheque and valuable resumé-builder that comes with any of the positions, there was still a deficit of people willing to run.

It’s a troubling problem for an organization that is supposed to be representative of the student body. Without some sort of vetting process, beyond filling out the paperwork and collecting the paltry 50 signatures required to run for office, the election becomes more of a test of will than popularity amongst students. What we got last year were candidates who by virtue of their desire to become executives were granted the position almost by default.

I hope this year we see a drastically different political scenario, both on the ballot and in the forums. A hotly-contested showdown for all of the positions not only gives students choice, but is much more likely to get them involved than a few awkward, embarrassed speeches from the only guys who bothered to run. What’s more, this kind of competition would force the candidates to put some effort into meeting students and getting them interested in the SU.

Competition was the fuel for the effort both Colten Yamagishi and David McBean put into the only semi-interesting race. This year, we need every position contested. If the candidates for every position were forced to get out there and get themselves known, students would be much more interested, more likely to vote, and more likely to get involved with the SU. And along with that, candidates who produce lazy posters and stumble through speeches would face the defeat they deserve.

We can be bothered to get together and play some dodgeball in order to set a world record, but when it comes to our student government, we seem to treat it the same way we treat online homework assignments. We deal with it as fast as possible and then put it out of our mind the rest of the time. If there is anything that could breathe some life into the electoral process, it is competition between viable candidates who care about making the school a better place.

After the last election cycle came to a close, we were lucky to get candidates as good as they turned out to be. But we lost a significant portion of what characterizes the process when we lost our opportunity to actually choose. Voter apathy is always an issue, and nothing else breeds disinterest more in any race than a predetermined ending. Voting last year was a formality, and few actually paid attention at all.

Competition would serve the dual purposes of getting students more interested in the election, and at the same time educating them about what the Students’ Union representatives would plan to do with their time. So if anyone out there is considering running for office, please take the plunge and get into the fight. Don’t let last year repeat itself.

© Gateway Student Journalism Society — All Rights Reserved