The candidates for the University Students’ Council presidential elections had their second official public appearance today, when they were interviewed in the Spoke for The Big Purple Couch.

The hosts interviewed each candidate separately for about 15 minutes. The format was more casual than last night’s debate, allowing the candidates more time to speak. Despite the more laid-back atmosphere, they mostly expanded on themes brought up in the debate.

Logan Ross came on stage first and appeared very much at ease. She continued on her somewhat risky path of drawing attention to her shortfalls—it was clear during the debate last night that she wanted to portray her lack of direct involvement in the USC as a strength, rather than a weakness.

At first I wasn’t convinced this would work—why try to sugar-coat your shortcomings rather than promote your assets?—but after the BPC interview, I think Logan might be able to actually make this work in her favour.

For example, some have questioned Logan’s plan to update her platform mid-campaign, saying it makes her look indecisive. But, as she clarified for BPC, “I can’t know every student’s concern before the campaign period.” She said her platform is feasible and won’t be changed completely—perhaps “adjusted” would have been a better word.

And again, she pushed her lack of direct involvement with the USC as a plus, saying she had “grassroots appeal.” I can see the tactic working now that Logan seems more comfortable in the campaign, but it remains to be seen whether voters will bite, or go with a more experienced (safer?) choice.

Jon Silver was next up, though unfortunately I missed the first few minutes of his interview—I briefly left the Spoke to follow what appeared to be an encore to yesterday’s protest.

When I returned, Jon was talking up his platform point of introducing a “Spoke Brew,” modelled after the infamous beer brewed in-house at the Ceeps. “Everyone loves Ceeps Brew,” he said as I sat down—hang on now, Jon, let’s not say things we can’t take back. I admit I’m intrigued by this idea, but I just don’t see how brewing beer with student fees could ever get off the ground [Update: I've been informed that Silver only plans to buy beer, and brand it as Spoke Brew].

Contrary to Logan, when asked to differentiate himself from Adam Fearnall, Jon pushed his extensive experience at various levels of student government. He claimed his experience was “much more well-rounded” than Fearnall’s, which is arguably true.

But while Jon continues to push his experience and impressive knowledge of the USC, is it possible he’s alienating some voters? It’s obvious that the average student knows far less about student government than Silver, and he might risk turning them in favour of Logan or Claire, the “average student” candidates.

Claire McArthur was all smiles—practically a platform point of its own for her. I couldn’t help noticing her boots were untied—perhaps it was part of her image as an average student (you know, the kind who eats lettuce while hanging out in Middlesex College).

To her credit, Claire defended her somewhat-criticized use of pop culture references in last night’s debate (she referenced four TV shows and a celebrity breakup, each in a separate answer), by saying she thought it was important to stay light-hearted in order to engage students, and even made another—this time to Napoleon Dynamite. She has a point—I’ll concede that some of those marathon five-hour council meetings could have gone by a lot quicker with some comic relief.

Though she answered questions directly for the most part, Claire continued to seem the least comfortable speaking in front of a crowd. Her answers tended to ramble and lack focus. However, as far as I can tell, Claire McArthur has more enthusiasm than any other candidate in this race. But how far will that take her?

Adam Fearnall is in his element in front of a crowd. Maybe it’s all that time he’s spent sitting in front of the USC as the speaker this year, but he seems to exude confidence when speaking to an audience.

At the same time, though, this confidence might be off-putting to some, crossing the line to insincere. Good politicians are great speakers, after all, and who’s ever heard of a sincere politician?

Adam defended his platform point for an interest credit for students, which was criticized as unfeasible by Jon Silver in last night’s debate—Silver said the credit would allow for far too many possible combinations to be researched, putting undue strain on an already struggling counselling system. Adam pointed out, however, that a similar system has already been implemented at other schools including McGill and Harvard (after all, Western is aiming to evoke Harvard-style prestige with their new branding), and said critics were just afraid of “big ideas” like this one.

When discussing his platform point to update the CHRW recording studio, Adam did drop one interesting nugget—reportedly he is working on an album of his own right now. Maybe it’s just part of one of his almost-too-well-rehearsed stories, but that’s something I want to hear.

According to Brianna Peniuk, chief returning officer for the USC, the violation came as a result of someone from Ross’ campaign team posting an advertisement for a “campaign party” in the Science Soph Facebook group prior to the campaign period.

“The issue is that it clearly was pre-campaigning,” Peniuk said.

“We gave her the lowest possible amount of demerit points according to the bylaw. It wasn’t like she was putting signs up on campus a week before the elections started or anything like that,” she continued.

A USC presidential candidate is allowed a maximum of 30 demerit points before they are disqualified from the race.

Ross, however, took issue with the elections committee, who make all decisions having to do with campaign violations, calling her post in the group an ad for a campaign party.

“I was just telling the members of my soph team that we were having a meeting for the launch, and in the email it said that I was advertising for a campaign party,” she said.

“I didn’t advertise it as a party, just as a campaign meeting so everyone could come and set everything up, just like any of the other candidates had done, because that’s what you do.”

Peniuk argued it was Ross’ use of the Facebook group itself before the campaign period that was the real issue.

“You’re not supposed to abuse the access to a group or contact list that anyone else may or may not have access to,” she countered.

“It was beyond the range of what was permissible.”

Ross did not seem phased to be the first of the four candidates to receive demerit points.

“I’m just going to keep running my own race and stay clean and hopefully it won’t affect the rest of my campaign.”

The debate between candidates remained relatively tame for the majority of the evening, with most of the discussion surrounding McArthur—both her views on the “USC as a business” and her television viewing habits.

While the candidates answered questions regarding financial matters, student events, campus issues and communications, tweets from students and councillors alike were displayed on two large screens under the hashtag #voteusc. With hundreds of tweets pouring in by the minute, it was evident this technological gimmick was holding the attention in the room.

In his introduction, Silver argued that the USC had become less student-driven, and Claire McArthur focused her argument on the fact that it was “time for the USC to be run by a student and not a politician.”

The beginning of the evening dealt with mental health on campus, with all candidates acknowledging mental health support on campus was lacking.

Fearnall astutely pointed out that Western had just spent over $200,000 on rebranding and yet mental health wait times for students were longer than ever.

Conversation later turned to the brand of the USC, justifying financial losses, expensive platform points, accessibility and sophing.

Candidates were in agreement over their love for Orientation Week, but were divided when it came to whether or not they would approve a service that was beneficial to students if it meant more than minor financial losses.

Silver explained that if it did provide a proven benefit, he would look at other avenues of making it more feasible, whereas Ross stated that “ultimately the USC has to be sustainable” and said she would not move forward with such a program.

This response garnered criticism on Twitter, with @tsurantino stating, “Logan puts money before student benefit.”

But the major controversy of the evening came at the beginning, when McArthur confidently stated that the USC was a business, neglecting to focus on its mandate to improve the lives of students on campus.

Some Twitter users were left wondering if this statement was a fatal mistake for the presidential candidate.

As the debate came to a close, the major impression left on the audience seemed to be the voracious use of Twitter to discuss the candidates.

Over a thousand tweets were displayed on the Mustang Lounge screens during the debate, boosting student engagement to what may have been an all-time high and a clear success for the USC.

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.

Adam Fearnall

Why did you decide to run for president?

I decided to run for president for the opportunity to bring the USC down from the third floor of the UCC to where students actually are.

What is your biggest platform point?

One thing I really want to do is take InfoSource and centralize all the information that people on campus need to access. I want us to become relevant in the actual things that students need in their lives.

What sets you apart from the other candidates?

I think what sets me apart is a combination of the experiences I’ve had in my time at Western and hopefully my personality. I hope that I come across as someone who is interested in taking the USC somewhere new.

What kind of campaign will you be running?

I think the campaign strategy has to match what my message is, meaning we have to go to the places where students actually are and meet them. We need to get the USC out of the UCC, and actually meeting people where they are.

How did you choose your campaign colour?

Essentially it was one of the only colours left. Does the colour green define me? Probably not. Am I excited to be wearing it for two weeks? Sure.

Claire McArthur

Why did you decide to run for president?

I think I can reach out to students that aren’t involved in the USC right now and get them excited and get them to want to be involved. The USC is in a great place right now—I just want to continue it and give the students more because they deserve more.

What is your biggest platform point?

The one I’m most passionate about is definitely my anti-office hours. Presidents in the past have always offered office hours. However, I don’t want students to have to come to me. I want to go to the students and have a presence on the entire campus, rather than just the 3rd floor of the UCC.

What sets you apart from the other candidates?

I think I’m different because I’ve been here for five years and I love this school. I hope my passion shines through during this campaign. I’ve been around this school long enough that I know how great it could be, and we’re almost there.

What kind of campaign will you be running?

It will be a high-energy, fun, engaging campaign that will reach out to a number of students, especially the ones who aren’t on the USC.

How did you choose your campaign colour?

I chose red because it’s the colour of power and empowerment. I’m going for a sign of recognition, and I think people identify with red.

Logan Ross

Why did you decide to run for president?

I decided to run because I want to make the USC more accessible for all students. I think right now the USC has a certain demographic and I want to have more feedback.

What is your biggest platform point?

I really want Frost Week to be this fun, O-Week, PurpleFest-type of event for upper-years. Right now Frost Week events are only in residences, and I really want to integrate the entire student body.

What sets you apart from the other candidates?

I think the fact that I am new sets me apart from other candidates. I’ve learned all of this from a grassroots level, so I’ve learned it all from an honest perspective and without bias.

What kind of campaign will you be running?

I think that I’m a fun and bubbly person and I just want to represent myself throughout this whole campaign period. Some people will love that and some people might not, but I’m going to be honest throughout it.

How did you choose your campaign colour?

I went down to InPrint and was looking at the colour wheel. I grabbed one of their business cards, which was actually this teal colour, so we went with that.

Jon Silver

Why did you decide to run for president?

I decided to run because I really do believe that students have a lot of power. We can do extraordinary things—I think we just haven’t harnessed that power as a student government.

What is your biggest platform point?

Nutrition is kind of a big point, and under it there’s a lot of ideas. It’s important that we give students the option for a healthier lifestyle.

What sets you apart from the other candidates?

I think I have a lot of diverse experience. That’s one thing that differentiates me—the scope of the experience that I’ve had. I think the other thing that differentiates me is that I really want to be talking to students.

What kind of campaign will you be running?

We want to talk to as many students as possible, because I’m confident that if I can talk to a student not only can I tell them my ideas, but I can also hear what they’re interested in. This campaign is going to evolve if I can get face-to-face with as many students as possible.

How did you choose your campaign colour?

I just thought that blue is a very identifiable colour, and a lot of people have blue clothing, so people can support the campaign.

No longer will our cellphones run out of batteries because we refuse to do the sensible thing and charge them at night. And no longer will our utterly pointless text messages to one another take a bit longer than usual.

I’m kidding — but I dare you to name two other Andrew Forgione platform points off the top of your head.

The smartphone stuff was the most publicized of his promises and clearly it resonated with voters.

But what obviously resounded more was Forgione’s campaign — the unstoppable, social media-powered blimp that puttered along at a steady, dependable pace to the tune of Duck Sauce.

It was populist, engaging and polished to the point of obsessive compulsiveness.

And it worked to perfection.

A 52 per cent majority win isn’t just a victory for Forgione, it’s a victory for the establishment.

The last three presidents we’ve had were all cut from the same cloth — polished, populist, pompous — and now you can make it four-gione.

But that’s not to say this is a bad thing. Forgione is a status quo kind of guy and following a year when the USC actually made strides financially for a change, maybe that’s what this government needs.

Plus, this year’s campaign pushed serious issues like mental health support services to the foreground. Forgione knows this needs his attention and the same goes for clubs reform, community space and, most of all, the intergalactic Death Star that is the Student Life department.

In the end, the Omid Salari surge simply was not enough to lift the eccentric ethics major and council speaker into office.

Say what you will about the man who walked around campus with a balloon tied to his waist and refused to censor himself, it sure was fun having him around.

As much as the USC needs a steady hand to steer this ship, it also needs strong, dissenting voices like Salari’s to be given a forum to challenge the organization.

Salari is a savvy political wizard who we likely haven’t seen the last of. Or heard the last from, at least.

David Basu Roy, meanwhile, will likely be remembered for his doomed greenhouse idea — a lightning rod of criticism over the past two weeks.

His campaign was never given much of a chance from the get-go, but for a relative unknown at the beginning of campaigning, the 1,571 votes he garnered is impressive.

You can say that students voted for the campaign and not for the man. But Forgione did what he had to do to win.

Through the slickest campaign videos, a seemingly endless campaign team and Forgibombs dropped left and right, his victory was rarely in doubt.

If you sit still you can already hear next year’s candidates taking note.

Unlike in recent years when voters were allowed to vote for seven Senator-At-Large candidates, this year every student will only be allowed to vote for one.

The change was truly a last minute decision. Just Monday morning, all nine senatorial candidates were asked to approve a ballot which clearly said “you may vote for 7 candidates at large” at the top. The ballot was unanimously approved.

However, Chief Returning Officer Adam Smith received a phone call from University Secretariat Ericka Hegedues Monday afternoon instructing him to change the number of student votes.

The majority of USC elections are governed by Smith, but both senatorial and board of governors elections are administrated by the Hegedues because they technically are university positions, not student council.

Smith had no choice but to change the ballot, as the senatorial elections are out of his jurisdiction.

But for the past two weeks the candidates had been campaigning based on the assumption students would have seven votes.

That makes the move especially damaging for candidates who ran as a ticket, telling voters to vote for themselves as well as another candidate or even a pair of candidates in the case of Adam Fearnall, Alysha Li and Michael Ciniello, who ran a joint campaign.

“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,” Ciniello said. “We all would have done a lot more individual campaigning if we knew this was going to happen.”

Several of the candidates took to Twitter and Facebook early Tuesday morning to voice their displeasure with the move, prompting Smith to send all nine candidates an e-mail at 1:35 a.m. to explain the situation.

“The ballot I sent you for review was what we had planned on using up until I received this phone call,” Smith said in the e-mail. “Unfortunately, I do not have the ability to change anything at this time.”

Smith said on Tuesday that he was too busy to inform the candidates prior to the beginning of the voting period.

“It was a very last minute decision,” Smith said. “I notified them as soon as I could of what the situation was. I sympathize with the candidates, but it’s unfortunately just how things work.”

Hegedues could not be reached for comment on Tuesday. However, Smith speculated that she made the move in order to ensure students were voting for the best candidate and not simply recognizable names.

“I don’t think it will change the overall results of the election. The best will be elected,” Smith said. “If they’re running a good campaign, people will want to vote for them for that reason. Not because they’re associated with other people.”

Candidates for the senate and board of governors have long suffered from not officially being a part of the USC campaign. Their campaign budgets are not reimbursed by the USC, unlike candidates for faculty president or councilor positions.

“If [the university secretariat] is going to bring down rulings at 3:00 in the afternoon the day before voting begins, I don’t think that’s really fair,” Pat Searle, a current senator-at-large, said. “If this is how senators are treated, I don’t think people will keep running.”

But when the chips are down, sometimes the best move is to just go all in. So let’s put our cards on the table, ante up and see what’s coming up the river.

All right — it’s out of my system.

It’s election time on campus today and tomorrow as students file into electronic voting booths and choose the next president of the University Students’ Council.

Well, the vast majority of you actually won’t. But at least 20 per cent of you will cast a ballot today or tomorrow and award one lucky individual a yearlong lease to an office on the third floor of the UCC.

Unlike last year when it was at times tough to tell heads or tails from the six candidates, this season we have three men who have, at the very least, defined themselves.

Andrew Forgione is the establishment candidate. He doesn’t like being called that but it’s undeniable he’s followed the “how to win a USC election” blueprint the closest of anyone.

That’s not to say it’s a bad thing that his campaign feels familiar. If you were running for USC president, why wouldn’t you follow a formula for success?

Plus, as he’s asserted when challenged on the topic in previous weeks, why are we chastising him for simply being prepared?

He clearly wants to win and if fielding a populist platform, viral video and a friendly, incessantly branded campaign is the path to victory, then you can’t fault him for taking it.

This is a campaign-to-win race. No one outside of the Gazette office is going to remember your promises or your platform two months from now. Campaign to get the key to the office, then do what you really want to once you’re sitting at the desk.

What he will do once he gets the desk has been the question plaguing Omid Salari throughout this race as his often-unpredictable behavior has not inspired confidence in some of the electorate.

His professionalism and tact have been frequently and fairly called into question. Yet there’s no denying the eccentric USC speaker has stuck true to himself throughout the campaign, whether he’s walking around campus with balloons floating above him or turning debates on their heads with his abrasive, oft-controversial rhetoric.

But at the same time he’s the type of guy who would hate that word — rhetoric. Which is why his campaign resonates with so many people tired of the same old polished USC candidates.

His campaign took some time to get off the ground much like it took Salari time to figure out how to accentuate his better qualities at debates. That has resulted in a definite Salari surge over the second week of campaigning, especially noticeable Monday on Twitter and Facebook where Salari supporters started to come out of the woodwork. But it won’t be until Wednesday night when we find out if it was enough.

David Basu Roy, meanwhile, entered this race from somewhere out in left field and has stayed there for most of it. From an unexplained banana suit gimmick early on in his campaign to knowingly printing unapproved posters — as a recent USC audit revealed — his candidacy hasn’t always added up.

He’s exceptionally bright, if inexperienced with the USC, and has shown the ability to adapt as the campaign has worn on. He ditched the banana suit early and has backed off in the latter half of the campaign from his USC greenhouse idea, which is widely believed to be entirely unfeasible — both good moves that show his flexibility.

Basu Roy also provides an alternative option to those turned off by Forgione’s polish or Salari’s abrasiveness. Most of campus doesn’t relate to the USC or truly understand what it is, which makes Basu Roy an intriguing candidate because he stands beside them on the outside looking in.

Of course, unfortunately for the engineering major, those students mostly don’t vote.

Which is the fourth and certainly most popular option in the race — the platform that says “I just can’t be bothered.”

It’s a candidate that doesn’t even require a vote and I guarantee you it will win this election.

The Good

Basu Roy deserves praise for having several unique initiatives but it’s unclear how they’ll be executed. The textbook loan service would offer students a cheap alternative to expensive textbook costs — if he can successfully navigate the arduous lobbying process. A fresh coat of paint to the UCC atrium is a cute, easy and cheap facelift for the space.

A closer examination of the USC risk management process would also be prudent for clubs and other groups who are frustrated with the current no-risk process. Basu Roy’s so-called “subjective approach” — while vague —offers at least a starting point for a worthwhile discussion in the future.

The Bad

There are three pieces of bad news in Basu Roy’s platform. First, his “Club Wave” idea — turning the UCC restaurant into an events-heavy hangout — is noble but bound for failure. Whether it’s club events, receptions or dub step bands, groups have long used the space on Thursday nights. Attendance depends on small, targeted groups — not mass appeal. And why would you ever want to take Rick out of the Spoke?

Council gear is a good idea, if you can convince a councillor to wear it around after council meetings. Even then it’s doubtful a nervous first-year is going to approach a random councillor on campus asking how to get involved.

Finally, students don’t need another bulletin board in the UCC. They’re already ignored because events worthy of their attention are sitting in their Facebook inboxes already. Get with the times.

The Ugly

The Greenhouse. The space on Brescia Hill is either claimed by the newest Ivey building or under disputed building rights. Also, if Grocery Checkout starts to lose too much revenue, students could lose their local grocery store. This is a project with a long-term costs, which cannot be funded solely by money through the Student Legacy Challenge. It’s an idea that has been roundly criticized by every insider with even a passing knowledge of the what’s feasible. So why does it remain on his platform?

The exam bank also gets a thumbs down. While great in theory, implementation is a nightmare well beyond Basu Roy’s reach. He’d have to lobby Western extensively. InPrint chased professors over the past year to beef up its bank and they’re coming up empty-handed. Between professors’ intellectual property rights and their desire to reuse the same exam, professors aren’t budging. Basu Roy would have to lobby Western’s Senate to make exam bank deposits mandatory. Good luck with that one.

Andrew Forgione

The Good

Forgione’s taken some heat for including several platform points that are already well underway by the current executive. But this also means he’s in a good position to finish the job. For example, while reforming clubs training and creating a new ClubsNet website are both underway, substantial changes take time — something Forgione might have recognized.

If executed properly, Forgione’s on-campus farmer’s markets could have students eating more local food. Even though this is already in the works, it could be developed to become more frequent. The only real obstacle is the USC agreement with Western’s Hospitality Services, which mandates what kind of competition the USC can establish.

The Bad

Taxis already visit campus regularly — especially during peak hours. Students desperate to call one likely have cellphones permanently attached to their hands. And as far as we know, no one’s afraid of a pay phone. Finally, discounts on cab service, even to students, are currently illegal under London bylaws.

Cellphone chargers seem like a good way to drain the USC’s electricity budget and not much else. It’s a bizarre idea, considering the plethora of phones students use and the mystery surrounding how to keep these appliances up to code and thief-proof. This idea might never meet its first plug.

The Ugly

The Spoke-to-Go Window is a liability waiting to happen. All it would take is one 18-year-old getting inside and grabbing a pint for the campus watering hole to dry up completely. Many of the initiatives leading to a leaner, more profitable Spoke are at the expense of part-time salaries. Paying someone to hand out CLTs will just be another payout.

Green-washed platforms might make for good campaigning, but they usually make for more work than they’re worth. Who’s going to ensure clubs are green before they get discounts, and what real benefits are there to greener clubs anyway? And yes, we know Forgione wants to lobby for more green initiatives on campus, but at the end of the day Western looks out for their bottom line, not just green alternatives.

Omid Salari:

The Good

Salari gets bonus points for being a straight-talking, down-to-earth guy — despite a touch of vulgarity on the campaign trail.

Wanting to get students to use what they already have is a sensible approach to improving the USC’s reach. Better marketing would help students see where their money is going and might even beef up its bottom line. Better marketing wouldn’t just be good for USC operations, it could also be re-invested in the less profitable services.

Salari’s snow shovelling service might be a strong platform point, depending on the laziness of the Western population. Most off-campus students could use a clear driveway. Whether they want to pay for the luxury is a different story. Having the USC organize everything would make it more convenient, and since it’s an opt-in only program, there’s less risk of wasting student dollars.

The Bad

Filming classes and posting them on YouTube is a good idea, but the decision to do it rests with professors, not the USC president. And while “lobbying Western” seems to be the go-to solution for any questionable platform point, professors will likely balk at having their hard work posted publicly for the world and its slacker students.

Holiday security check-ins have been looked into in the past — and were roundly shot down. When London Police have been approached to help out, the USC was told to forget about it. Most commuter students go home during the holidays, leaving not only your home but your neighbour’s house empty. So even if you’ve registered your house with the service, who’s going to be around to call the police?

The Ugly

Yes, mental health and psychological services are broken on this campus — and existing managers understand this. Waiting lines are unreasonable, but absorbing this responsibility under the USC’s purview is illogical. First of all, students already pay for psychological services through Western student fees. Salari would have to convince the Board of Governors to dismantle the existing service and allow the USC to collect the fee — all under a vague promise that the USC could do it better.

This is a large, complicated issue and Salari’s shown he’s massively misunderstood the problem with this platform point. The best way to solve the problem is to head in the opposite direction. Get Western to invest earnestly in this service, lobby the province for support and make mental health an issue that everyone needs to consider — not just the USC.

Every year students are bombarded with campaign ads, signs on University College hill, and explanations of why they should vote. As university students, we are supposed to be informed and educated about political issues — so why does no one seem to care when it comes to University Students’ Council elections?

“I think most students don’t vote because they feel uninformed and don’t just want to vote because someone is their friend’s friend or because they were told to vote for someone,” said Catherine Abernethy, a third-year student in media, information, and technoculture.

Laura Stephenson, a political science professor at Western, agreed many students might not feel confident choosing the right person for the job.

“There is research that shows some young people don’t vote because they think that they aren’t informed enough,” she said. She added some students believe one vote won’t make a difference, or policies inevitably put into place won’t affect them.

“Perhaps it’s the fault of the USC. Students don’t seem to know why the USC is involved in their daily lives,” said Meaghan Coker, vice-president university affairs for the USC. “Maybe we need to make ourselves more relevant to students and say that everyday, regardless if you come to our office, we are doing things that affect you.”

With voter turnout fluctuating year-to-year, there are still students who are politically informed and engaged in the USC election process.

“Not all students are apathetic to voting,” Stephenson said. “Some are quite interested and engaged and take the time to become informed and cast a ballot. A lot of others, however, do not see much point in voting.”

This year, apathy isn’t just a problem with voters but also with potential candidates — there are only half the number of presidential candidates as there were last year.

“I think the fact that we only have three male candidates is a problem that we should be concerned about,” Coker said. “How do we only have three people that want to lead this organization? The fact that it’s not that admired of a position, or something that is seen as a great opportunity, is a bit of an issue.”

Curing voter apathy won’t come easy, Coker said, because sentiments are unlikely to change without actively trying.

“I don’t think it’s naturally going to change, I think it’s something people are going to have to actively change,” Coker said.

But as a student, Abernethy said, schoolwork comes first — especially during a busy February when essays, exams and assignments pile up before the inevitable reading week.

“I think more students would vote if the elections were held at a different time of the year. I have enough things to worry about with exams and essays without constantly being attacked with information telling me I should vote for someone because of this or that reason,” Abernethy says.

One lone Western student showed up and even shared a comment of two bringing the total attendance at the forum to ten, which included three members of the Gazette.

Of course one out of 26,500 is less than ideal, but hey — it’s a start. Maybe next time he brings a friend, and then his friend brings another two friends, and then… well, you know.

We’re just trying to look at things optimistically here as we stumble towards what could be the dullest USC election campaign in recent memory.

Of course, the low attendance is music to the ears of USC brass who are scrambling to change an election process which has, in the age of social media and populist campaigning, quickly grown counterintuitive to their agenda.

As it stands, there is nothing stopping an enterprising young man or woman with zero USC experience from finding the right balance of populism and intelligent campaigning to propel them into the highest seat on the USC executive council.

And there isn’t a better year than this for an eager nobody to pull it off with one serious candidate emerging in pre-election talk.

Emily Rowe won the presidency in 2009, riding a wave of populist ideas and a clever campaign which was the first to utilize a YouTube video. Sure, she had the support of the school’s largest faculty, but she still won with a commanding 3,957 votes.

Even without the social science bump, Rowe and her campaign manager Dan Moulton were onto something.

Last year, Marshall Goldfarb — a business major and the man behind the tarnished Student Magazine — went a similar route, using his popular three dollar meals platform point to propel him to fourth in the voting with more than a thousand votes, despite having no USC experience.

It was a wake up call for the USC and possibly a harbinger of things to come if someone can finally put all the pieces together and run the most populist, colourful, vote-winning campaign this campus has ever seen.

The biggest move toward making the process more exclusive and insular is a new question and answer forum, hosted by campus media and designed to grill the candidates on USC policy, issues and practices.

The idea came from on high — the USC’s full-time staff members and Western Board of Governors are behind it — and would ideally weed out anyone unfamiliar with the USC or force them to learn how the USC and its multi-million dollar budget operates.

But understanding the nuts and bolts of the USC is one thing — being president is another.

Current president Mike Tithecott  — who famously admitted during last year’s campaign period that he was unprepared for the job — will be the first to tell you there’s no way to be equipped for stepping in as the head of the USC.

The real issue here is that it seems no one within the student union really wants this job. Several intelligent, enterprising senators and councillors are looking past the presidential race, setting their sights on a vice-presidential position which is seen as more of a prize.

Consider that for two years running, the USC vice-president university affairs has also served as the president of the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance, a highly distinguished position among student union types.

Especially during Rowe’s tenure it became increasingly evident that Moulton, her VP-UA, was pulling all the strings behind the scenes. At one memorable council meeting, Rowe sidestepped a question about soda sales, quickly correcting herself when Moulton whispered the correct number in her ear.

The USC can make all the moves they want to make it tougher for your Goldfarbs or your White and Purple stars to win this thing. But when you can’t find at least two legitimate presidential candidates on council, the problem comes from within.