Corey Stanford/Gazette
Okay, Western. Let’s all just take a deep breath.
Solid Twitter panic last night. I was thoroughly impressed. I mean, you could’ve done better. Maybe next time try rioting or razing some buildings or something. But the impulsive, panicked reaction online to the launch of the 2011 edition of the University Students’ Council election was a nice touch.
But frankly, if I was running for senator-at-large, I might have been a little frenzied myself. Here’s the deal.
When the keenest of the keen went online to vote in the USC elections early this morning, they found they were only able to vote for one senator-at-large. Seven senators are elected to the position and traditionally students are able to cast seven votes.
But according to an e-mail from Chief Returning Officer Adam Smith sent to all nine senator-at-large candidates that was obtained by Blog the Vote, Smith was instructed by University Secretariat Erika Hegedues on Monday to reduce the number of candidates students can vote for from seven to one. This despite the fact that all senatorial candidates were asked to approve the following ballot Monday morning:
While Smith is the CRO of most of the USC elections, Hegedues is in charge of both the Senate and Board of Governors elections and has final say in both those matters.
Here’s an excerpt from Smith’s e-mail to the senatorial candidates:
“Earlier today, I received a phone call from Erika informing me that I was to change the number of Senators-at-Large candidates a student can vote for from 7 to 1. She assured me this is the way it has always been done and that IT would be taking care of the reprogramming of the ballot. Again, let me stress that UWO administers these elections, not the USC.
The ballot I sent you for review was what we had planned on using up until I received this phone call. Unfortunately, I do not have the ability to change anything at this time.
That being said, we will be looking into it again in the morning. This does not mean it will be changed. If anything does, I will inform you immediately.”
It may not seem like the biggest issue from the outside looking in, until you realize that some of the senatorial candidates ran as a slate. Candidates Michael Ciniello, Alysha Li and Adam Fearnall all ran a joint campaign anticipating that students would have seven votes and be able to vote all three of them in. Now, with the rug pulled out from under them mere hours before the voting period begins, the senatorial candidates are feeling misled. Ciniello had this to say about the matter via e-mail late last night:
“Some heads up would have been nice, at least for campaigning purposes. I entered into a joint campaign with two other candidates because we had a similar vision and set of ideas for the senate next year. Now that only one vote can be cast, the possibility that the majority of our supporters votes will go to only one of us looms overhead. We all would have done a lot more individual campaigning if we knew this was going to happen. I guess we will have to wait and see what happens.”
Meanwhile, Vivian Leung, another candidate for senator-at-large, told me late last night that she had also been telling voters that they would not be forced to choose simply one candidate:
“It affects anyone, including myself, who has been telling voters that they don’t need to make a choice between one and another candidate because we would love to work together and would appreciate getting voted in together.”
The principle of giving every student just one vote isn’t the issue here. The playing field is still level and, if anything, the best candidates would get in because students who aren’t informed on all of the senatorial candidates wouldn’t simply be picking sixth and seventh names at random to fill their ballots.
What’s at issue here is that the senatorial candidates ran their campaigns under the assumption that voters would not have to pick just one of them. That severely changes the dynamic of their campaign. If students were only going to receive one vote, that should have been determined before the campaign period ever began — not a few hours before the polls open.
I’m sure we’ll find out more about this on Tuesday but as of now it appears that Smith won’t be able to do anything about this and students will only have one senatorial vote this year. With polls closing Wednesday at 8:00 p.m. and more and more students voting with every passing hour, there are certainly a lot of senatorial candidates out there feeling like they got the raw end of the deal.
So that said, it’s a big day I guess
Because the elections issue of the Gazette is out, of course. What — is there something else going on?
Oh yeah, that whole voting thing. When you’ve got a moment, do your part and first get informed and then vote.
I cannot stress this enough — don’t vote if you’re not getting informed first
How do you go about getting informed? As far as objective sources go, might I suggest today’s issue of the Gazette or Pat Searle’s Fuss on the Bus elections special as starting points. This blog ain’t bad either.
Or for platforms and information directly from the candidates, you can check out the respective websites for presidential candidates David Basu Roy, Andrew Forgione and Omid Salari.
Just please read something before you vote.
Really, that’s the most important thing today. Don’t just vote because you feel like you have to. Don’t just vote for the guy with the video you like the most. Don’t just vote for the hot one. Actually read up on the candidates, check out their platforms and get informed.
Boosting voter turnout would be great, but I’ll take a 20 per cent share of campus that is informed over a 50 per cent share of campus that just votes for the name they recognize any day of the week. Remember, this is the highest position on your student union — it’s a very big, important, influential role. Don’t just hand your vote to someone without doing your homework.
And don’t just brush up on the presidential elections either. Learn about the senatorial candidates and the board of governors candidates as well. The USC representatives on the board of governors sit on the highest governing body of the university. It’s a big freakin’ deal.
But if you’re not going to get involved, that’s cool. Just don’t vote. You’re not helping.
Loading ...
I heard from Irene Birrell today. She writes:
“I write in response to your email to Erika with respect to balloting in the At-Large and Brescia/Huron/King’s constituencies. There was no ‘decision’ taken to limit students to one vote. The amendment to the process was the result of an error. As Chief Returning Officer, I will be meeting with the Operations/Agenda Committee as soon as we can get a meeting to determine next steps and have so advised the candidates involved in the two constituencies.”
I strongly encourage every candidate (or concerned student) to file an appeal with Irene and the Senate committee. The results can by no means be concluded to be accurate and representative of the voting intentions of students. Consequently, I can see no reasonable alternative than to re-run the election, allowing students to vote for a maximum of 7 candidates.
AC, I have disagreed with you in the past. Today, I do not.
Its already been said how unfortunate this turn of events is, and all I’m going to say is that I truly feel that way. I want my colleagues to be elected fairly and not feel like they’ve been ambushed by the University. This is not fair. Something needs to be done once voting is over. I hope to help with this, and I hope that, like Andrew said, whoever wins President will also lend some assistance.
Arzie is absolutely right. Having run in two Senate elections and voted in five during my time at Western, I can definitively say that it has not “always been done” this way. In fact, it hasn’t been done that way for at least 5 years. Either way, making the change so close to the beginning of voting is quite a troubling development, and I think students (especially those running) are absolutely within their rights to be outraged.
Regardless of which candidate talks about the Administration or other members of the university community not taking students seriously, this is definitely a prime example. In about 16 hours we’ll find out who wins this election, and with any luck the new President will have both the guts and the tact to stand up to the Administration et al on issues such as this one and sorten things out.
Best of luck to everyone with the elections tomorrow, thank you once again Arden for some great coverage, and kudos to The Gazette for both not endorsing a candidate and for publishing the elections issue on the first day of voting.
I’ll be watching the results live here in British Columbia tomorrow, and I know that no matter how things turn out the students of UWO will be blessed with a new crop of incredibly talented student leaders. Lets just hope they can all live up to their promises and the hype.
Well, far be it from me to post-campaign.
But man… doesn’t my rhetoric ring true here? Isn’t it uncanny that admin dicks with us now?
The irony, or coincidental merit, cannot be underrated.
I’m loling here.
The Secretariat’s decision is entirely without merit. Students have a clear right to elect their preferred rep for all 6 senator-at-large seats (7 this year because one seat has been moved as a result of no nomination being received in the Business, Engineering, Education, and Law constituency), not just one of the 6.
Moreover, I’m sure where Erika is getting her information that it has “always been done this way”. It hasn’t. I’ve been at Western longer than Irene Birrell herself and I can tell you that we have not elected senators in this way to my knowledge. Certainly not in the majority of elections in which I have voted and/or been a candidate myself.
I believe candidates have good reason to have the results quashed and have the elections re-run. Of course, as they must appeal to the Secretariat, I don’t know how far they will get. Frankly, if the answer is no, they should go over her head to Chakma or the Board. It wouldn’t be the first student vote overturned by the Board.
I will reserve judgement on the reasoning until I hear from Erika personally, but this development is troubling. The Secretariat administers the elections as dictated by policy. They might argue it is within their purview to make such changes, but they are on shaky ground. Furthermore, the decision to make such a change in short-order only compounds the concern over the decision. I struggle to envision any argument that can sufficiently address the democratic deficit that is created by stripping students of 6 votes. This unquestionably changes the dynamic of the election and has the potential to alter the results.
Arden,
You’re probably getting this a lot but I just wanted to come out of the woodwork and say that the election coverage was ridiculously amazing this year. I really did feel totally informed enough to vote for Omid.