Arthur MacatangayWe’re a few days into the 2022 Students’ Union election, and there seems to be one thing lacking from one forum to the next: consistency. With each forum, it feels like the rules shift and change. Elections are a whirlwind, and it can be hard to keep tabs on everything going on — especially when the rules that should apply to each forum only seem to apply to some.
While the Campus Saint-Jean (CSJ) forum seemed very informal, and the ASC had rules enforced, the Residence and Myer Horowitz forums, in comparison to the others, were very strict. Almost every rule was enforced, and if not, everyone was reminded of them afterwards.
During forums, anyone and everyone is allowed to ask questions to the candidates. Students to campaign volunteers, even the candidates themselves, can ask questions. However, it’s extremely important to state your affiliation before each question. Typically, if you are affiliated with a campaign or The Gateway, you have to let everyone in the room know and there is a reminder of this rule at the beginning of each forum. This is standard in every election, so why wasn’t it consistently upheld in every forum?
Pointed questions, while allowed, are very fishy. In the CSJ forum, it seemed as though campaign volunteers and managers were asking a lot of questions, but they never told the room who they were — so there is no way for us to know for sure. If you’re watching the livestream, it’s nearly impossible to tell who is asking these questions. Asking questions that build up one candidate while tearing down the other can warp the views of students watching. To people who are unaware, these questions seem factual, instead of a free shoutout.
In the Residence forum, the mediator reminded those asking questions to state their affiliation if they had one. Other than that, there wasn’t much to stop planted questions.
As it turns out, this isn’t a new concern. Two years ago, The Gateway published an editorial surrounding transparency during elections. They called for bylaws to be introduced in order to reinforce people asking questions to state their affiliations. The year before, there was an editorial about how the campaign managers of prospective candidates shouldn’t be the only ones asking questions. If asking candidates and their teams to abide by the rules isn’t working, then stricter rules need to be put in place.
Elections officials, student journalists, and prospective candidates owe it to the student body to be transparent during elections. What seems obvious to us, like campaign volunteers asking pointed questions to opposing candidates, may not be obvious to those who aren’t directly involved. Pointed questions have always been hard to detect, but now that much of the student body watches over live stream, it’s gotten worse. Campaigns and elections staff both need to make a conscious effort to get candidates and their volunteers to state affiliations. Not upholding this consistently in the forums isn’t okay.
Another huge issue with the forums this year is people asking off-topic questions. Each forum is about a different group or topic, and the questions are meant to reflect that. For example, the ASC forum is meant for Indigenous students to express their concerns to candidates.
However, there were many times during the CSJ and ASC forums where candidates would ask each other questions that would have very little to do with the topic at hand. It wasn’t until the Residence forum that the mediator stopped candidates from asking questions that weren’t about residence. When it did happen, the mediator asked the candidates if they wanted to answer the question or not.
It’s very disheartening for students whose issues are often overlooked when they aren’t even the focus of their own forum. CSJ and Indigenous students should’ve been a priority. Too often at their own forums, their issues were overlooked and questions they had were potentially missed. There should’ve been a greater effort to enforce on-topic questions at these first two forums.
Typically, these are rules in place to ensure that candidates, election officials, onlookers, and campaign volunteers don’t negatively influence or impact the race. Of course, there are always mistakes, especially when there are so many people involved.
Consistency and transparency are vital to a fair and just election. If election staff can’t uphold this on their own and candidates won’t listen, then bylaws and strict penalties need to be established. At this point, there has not been enough done this year to keep candidates and their teams in check.
