The University Students’ Council presidential debate was held in front of a full house in the Mustang Lounge Wednesday night. #voteusc became a Twitter trending topic, and the tweets were shown next to the stage using a live feed.
At the debate councillors asked the candidates general questions which were answered by the candidates with a time cap of two minutes. There was no clear winner of the debate, as each candidate had their own strengths and weaknesses in the group setting. Below is a review of how the candidates handled the crowd—but first, a tip from someone who’s been to a couple of these before.
First thing’s first—candidates need to know their audience. USC councillors know their stuff, so don’t try to fool them. This gang know what the finances of the USC are and what’s feasible. Some of them are idealistic, and some are jaded—but all of them care about this organization and the students it oversees. Many of these students are already on campaign teams as well. What I’m trying to say is these friendly looking people pack a bit of a bite, and know where to place it. There’s a time and a place to talk about warm fuzzy things, but this place is about the issues.
Claire McArthur attempted to make her points using frequent television analogies. Which would have been great if her audience had watched as much TV as she does. And if they didn’t have access to Twitter to pick on her.
She threw her “real student” pitch well. She frequently mentioned things like her finances and her parents. McArthur also showed a more than passing knowledge of the USC, mentioning things like the presidential initiative fund and her meetings with several managers. The knowledge of the USC came as a bit of a surprise.
Her weakness, on the other hand, was her rambling responses, and the fact that she didn’t always answer the question. For example, when she was asked about changing the USC’s brand to reflect the university’s, she explained how much she loved the school and quoted Shakespeare. She also appeared confused on initiatives which were already in place. She explained the USC should have monthly meetings with administration—the president currently has regular meetings with several key members of administration, and sits on several committees which feature key members.
Logan Ross seemed underwhelming during the debate. She avoided several questions and appeared unsure for several as well.
She frequently praised the current council, saying she would continue the peer phone line and supporting the current council’s habit of sending out surveys. Ross aimed small and relatively feasible with her platform, which she could have highlighted more in the debate. For example, she mentioned she would lobby for recycling to be a higher priority on campus, but failed to mention how this would actually happen.
Ross has learned to use her lack of experience to her advantage, however. She explained how she would be able to stay in touch with students after becoming president, and also noted her desire to continue using the tools of the current USC, such as Facebook, to communicate. She also explained being a student at large allowed her to critique it, and make it more accessible. She mentioned having town hall style meetings, because students at large cannot currently speak at USC meetings.
Jon Silver clearly showed he was at ease with the crowd and knew what he was talking about. He frequently mentioned specific people who he has spoken with, showing his knowledge of the organisation.
Jon Silver spent a good chunk of his answers praising past executives. He praised past vice-presidents of university affairs for their lobbying work, because it takes so long to make the university move on an issue, for example. He also frequently dropped his extensive USC knowledge, including a shout out to former president Fab Dolan, who tried to sue the university.
Silver mentioned he would trust his managers and his team, frequently mentioning he “was not the expert.” While this is true, it sometimes undermined the point he was trying to make. For example, he mentioned when choosing to offer a new service, he would consult with partners in the community so the service would be feasible. This is the smartest idea when you’re in the president’s chair, however to the average student it may sound like an excuse.
Adam Fearnall let his experience shine this meeting. He often highlighted his role as Huron University College Students’ Council president. He noted this was a similar position to what he was going for as USC president. He neglected to mention some of his main campus USC experience however, which may lead students to think of him as “the Huron kid,” and not a Western student. This also meant he failed to share some of the USC knowledge he currently has.
Fearnall came off as one of the most approachable candidates during the debate. He openly admitted when he did not necessarily know the answer to a particular question. He frequently told stories about his peers and his Grade 1 self, making it sound as if he has actually spent some time with students. This also included acknowledging that many students were involved at Western, just not in the USC.
Loading ...
They had one minute each to answer questions. Not two.
John Jackson
I like how you’re presenting your own opinion as fact while simultaneously accusing, and criticizing, someone else for doing the very same. Lol kids these days.
(click to show comment)
yo Matt
u mad bro?
@Matt C.
Matt, I’ve taken issue with the fact that you don’t seem to comprehend the point of an opinion piece. Cheryl expressed, in her own words, her thoughts on each candidate. She didn’t present your favourite candidate in the best possible light (according to you), and that made you angry.
How she perceived each candidate is for her to decide, not you. I’m not here to debate which candidate is the best and which one is the worst, as it’s not a debate at all. Any discussion there may have been has devolved into narrow-minded partisan bickering. Your continued rage-fest is proof of this.
And if you’re going to accuse someone else of being ignorant/uneducated…
“…bash heads with people who know what their talking about.”
I assume you’re in university, which means you’re old enough to know the difference between “their” and “they’re”.
It pleases me that we’re able to discuss this matter like civilized, informed gentlemen. I eagerly await your next well-constructed, rational reply.
This is honestly fun to read
(click to show comment)
“Try and stay professional. Ad Hominem is something children do to get their point across. I suggest watching the next debate live prior to your impotent outbursts towards others behind a computer screen.”
…man, Ad Hominem SUCKS huh?
@Matt C.
It’s about perspective Matt. Not everyone sees things the way you do, nor should they be obliged to. We’re not talking about the existence of gravity or the solubility of salt in water here, we’re talking about personal opinions. They are subjective in nature, not objective. Educate yourself before attempting to belittle others.
Your last post clearly illustrates how emotional and irrational this issue has made you, which is why I included:
>I await your furious, tear-soaked down-votes.
Thanks for driving the final nail, Matt.
I like how Matt C. tries to take the higher ground when he’s clearly the one being a scumbag. Lol kids these days.
(click to show comment)
Thank-you Erving
@Siobhan, Matt C.
“If the Gazette was reporting OBJECTIVE facts and not presenting a bias in this election I do not think there would be these problems you are experiencing on the comment boards.”
>OBJECTIVE facts
Is there any other kind of “fact”? By definition a “fact” is objective.
Seems like the “problems” are stemming from juvenile twits who can’t look past their own partisan sympathies. Not everyone is going to agree with you, and it’s not the point of an opinion piece to write something that everyone will be pleased with.
Essentially, you’ve taken issue with the fact that Cheryl has an opinion. Grow up.
I await your furious, tear-soaked down-votes.
*forget
@Matt C.
I’m sorry, Matt, but I’m going to have to disagree with you. On several things, actually, although it’s in no way personal and I’m sure you’re a lovely person.
I have looked over Jon Silver’s platform (and perhaps I should make it clear that I am not involved in any of the campaigns), and am most impressed with many of the smaller changes that you, by contrast, seem less enthusiastic about. The Spoke Mugs, for example: I think that’s a great idea. I hate throwing out mugs, but I also didn’t have to bring a mug from home everytime I want free hot water. It’s small, admittedly, but it is completely feasible and something that I would tangibly benefit from, as I’m sure would many others. His attidute towards making the Spoke healthier I also agree with. Most of that menu is golden brown or pale yellow, and oozing with sauce. It’s an idea like the mugs: another small (read: realistic) change which I believe not insignificant.
I’ll admit some of the more grandiose ideas by other cantidates pack more of a punch (and perhaps, for that reason, a greater appeal), but–as you implied–they will be much more difficult to implement. Not impossible, mind, but highly improbable. I’m sorry for generalising, but you sound as though you’ve read the platforms.
Lastly (and more briefly), I’m going to disagree with the following quote of yours: “…it’s stupid to believe that one will win a campaign based on a popularity contest rather than the goals they want to achieve as USC President.”
Unfortunately, we aren’t dealing with an environment where the most capable candidates with the best ideas win. This is politics. Winning because of populism is entirely possible, and (some might argue) it might even have happened in the past.
However, I’m not going to continue this row any longer; forge I said anything.
I’m not trying to attack or criticise you, I’m simply disagreeing with your viewpoints.
Happy voting!
(click to show comment)
Siobhan, as Kaleigh just said “THIS IS OPINION”. I’ve read the News pieces for the election and have yet to see bias. Perhaps there is bias in the In View section, but again, it’s a place for the editors to share their OPINIONS. Honestly…for University students, you’d figure people could read….Don’t post something without actually reading and checking, so you don’t look like a fool, Miss Thing.
(click to show comment)
(click to show comment)
To all commenters: please remember the USC in View blog is a place for editors to share their opinions on the elections. For straight-forward, objective fact-reporting, please read the news section of the Gazette, either online or in print.
Thanks for your comments and keep the discussion going!
Dear Anne,
Have you read Silver’s platform? Have you compared it to every other candidates? Yes, not everything on everyone’s platforms are perfect. Claire wants a crosswalk from London Hall to Perth Hall, which will never happen. Logan wants more online textbooks, which is useful but not many people may choose to like it. But seriously, getting new “spoke mugs” and more combo meals? Jon Silver’s platform doesn’t look like something a USC President would make changes on. His ideas are more of what is seen on a card in a suggestion box at the Spoke. If he has so much experience, he’s clearly showing that he’s doing nothing with it. I’m sure the public isn’t going to base their vote on what kind of burger he’s going to put on the menu either.
Platforms in this campaign are critical, but not many people are reading them. Why? Because in reality, not many people care about politics. Instead, they want their friend to win, or someone who they know. And that’s the card that Jon Silver is playing: he’s throwing himself out in the public. Smart? Yes. It’s a genius way to get votes. But it’s stupid to believe that one will win a campaign based on a popularity contest rather than the goals they want to achieve as USC President. Silver’s platform looks as though he hasn’t formulated much thought into what he wants done as President, which seems contrary to what one might believe he could do with all of his “experience”. This is why I coined Logan’s performance today as “best”, being that her answers were well thought of and she herself knew what she was talking about. The Gazette clearly shows a bias for Jon, and the educated public will start noticing what’s going on here. Once everyone knows the importance of platforms and sees every candidate’s policies, everyone will soon realize that Jon’s experience doesn’t mean anything. Logan, although unknown, is actually doing something to make a name for herself, rather than Jon pretty much just yelling his on the street.
Thanks for your input, and I hope to read something that isn’t all just vocabulary from you.
Really? How can you report “She avoided several questions and appeared unsure for several as well.” in regards to Logan’s answers, then come back with “He openly admitted when he did not necessarily know the answer to a particular question.” for Adam’s answers? I thought both candidates did a great job, but neither tried to hide when asked difficult questions and implying so is reckless reporting. Logan even threw out an Einstein quote as a clever response for admitting she didn’t know.
Good Job at the debate Adam, Claire, Logan, and Jon.
Dear Matt, what exactly is your idea of the term “best”? While I do not disagree with the fact that Logan held up well tonight (contrary to how I thought she would do), I would not define her performance as the “best” of the evening.
In fact, I would not go so far as to say that any candidate necessarily put on the best performance. I think each one of them did a great job attempting to demonstrate their knowledge of the USC, although it is evident that two of the candidates have significantly more experience than the other two. Experience, if I may add, which is integral to the successful fulfilment of the position of USC President. It is beyond me how one is expected to fully be able to lead the USC when they have only started attending USC meetings this academic school year.
Further, I’m not entirely sure what you’re getting at when you say Jon Silver’s platform “looks like it’s been written by a 7 year old”. Frankly, that comment looks like it was formulated by a 7 year-old.
Cheers.
I have to agree with the two comments above, article after article its a continuation of: logan ross is unexperienced, we don’t know logan ross, Jon Silver is the best. After what we’ve seen I’d hoped that the Gazette would offer a more unbiased view on the elections so to not sway the average student blindly in voting.
Yes, Jon seemed at ease in the debate, but this negativity for Logan seems uncalled for. I thought she really showed today. She was calm and confident in her answers, and out of all the candidates her ideas were feasible and weren’t continuing the constant “I promise the world attitude” that students have come to expect from candidates in years past.
Overall, this was a great debate, and slowly we are seeing the candidates start to seperate from each other.
Dear Matt, what exactly is your idea of the term “best”? While I do not disagree with the fact that Logan held up well tonight (contrary to how I thought she would do), I would not define her performance as the “best” of the evening.
In fact, I would not go so far as to say that any candidate necessarily put on the best performance. I think each one of them did a great job attempting to demonstrate their knowledge of the USC, although it is evident that two of the candidates have significantly more experience than the other two.
Further, I’m not entirely sure what you’re getting at when you say Jon Silver’s platform “looks like it’s ben written by a 7 year old”. Frankly, that comment looks like it was formulated by a 7 year-old.
Cheers.
It’s even more interesting how the Gazette is applauding Jon Silver in almost every article. Logan had the best performance, yet Gazette says she did terrible and avoided questions. Why doesn’t the Gazette do a report on everyone’s platforms that they posted online? I’m sure Jon Silver won’t get a lot of applause in that major field of campaigning, since his platform looks like it’s been written by a 7 year old.
Interesting that the Gazette says that Logan Ross seemed underwhelming during the debates… This is the first time I’ve been to a debate like this and along with Adam, Logan stood out for sure. The Gazette also says that Logan avoided certain questions… this never happened. Anyone at the debate can tell you this. She received a huge applause for two of her answers and her light really shined through. I don’t understand why the Gazette is reporting things that are clearly false.