I agree with Aaron Takhar!
On banning slates, that is.
In his March 26 letter to the editor, SFU student (and former Kwantlen Student Association executive) Aaron Takhar argued against the recent decision of the SFSS Board of Directors to ban slates from its annual general elections. He claimed that the incumbent Board of Directors "have just been given — by themselves via a vote on the resolution — an even greater advantage over those new students who (almost) cared enough to consider running in the election." "You can’t ban politics," he continues, "you can only restrict it from the less fortunate; in this case it is new students that sought to run but eventually decided against it" — such as, say, himself.
Now, I'm not entirely convinced of Mr. Takhar's argument. Prior to the Alma Mater Society's ban on slates, the "Students for Students" slate won election after election through the inculcation of its brand name, even though (in general) only one of it's incumbent executives was running for re-election. Perhaps the 2007 election at SFU is different due to the large number of incumbents running for re-election.
However, in my opinion, there are at least three good reasons to oppose the banning of slates:
In his March 26 letter to the editor, SFU student (and former Kwantlen Student Association executive) Aaron Takhar argued against the recent decision of the SFSS Board of Directors to ban slates from its annual general elections. He claimed that the incumbent Board of Directors "have just been given — by themselves via a vote on the resolution — an even greater advantage over those new students who (almost) cared enough to consider running in the election." "You can’t ban politics," he continues, "you can only restrict it from the less fortunate; in this case it is new students that sought to run but eventually decided against it" — such as, say, himself.
Now, I'm not entirely convinced of Mr. Takhar's argument. Prior to the Alma Mater Society's ban on slates, the "Students for Students" slate won election after election through the inculcation of its brand name, even though (in general) only one of it's incumbent executives was running for re-election. Perhaps the 2007 election at SFU is different due to the large number of incumbents running for re-election.
However, in my opinion, there are at least three good reasons to oppose the banning of slates:
- As a pure matter of principle, banning slates is anti-democratic and contrary to freedom of speech and freedom of association. Everyone should have the right to join together with like-minded fellow students and seek to influence the direction of their students' union, both during elections and outside of them.
- Many students' unions have a very large number of different 'categories' of positions for which one can run in an election. Many large students' unions have five or so full-time executive positions, plus a large number of unpaid Council positions; many smaller students' unions have over a dozen separate executive positions. Without a degree of coordination amongst potential candidates for office, it is likely that many positions would lie vacant or be won by acclamation. [Of course, adjusting the structure of a students' union's Council/Board could eliminate this issue.]
- Banning slates simply obscures what will likely happen anyways, behind the scenes. In particular, the 2007 election at SFU seemed to produce two 'non-slates': (1) the incumbent SFSS directors and their allies, and (2) a group of candidates from the SFU NDP club.
Labels: sfu
20 Comments:
The SU at Alberta does not ban slate, just makes sure they do not enjoy an overwhelming advantage. It works pretty good for them.
Additionally, Calgary's SU allows slates, but it apparently is practically a death sentace for those candidates (according to Julie and Mike). However, when things get to the stage of institutionalism that existed within the AMS (SPAN and the SFS had party conventions, nomination contests, etc), then there is a bit of a problem.
On point one, I disagree. All elections (organizational, firm or state) have rules which regulate 'freedoms' away in some form or another. First past the post systems (the system at SFSS) are often called undemocratic. SFSS $ restrictions are also in some ways undemocratic. Any sort of regulation is bound to be considered that way by some, but these are instituted for ideological reasons...mainly that people with more power/money/organizational backing could get elected based of that...not their platform.
As for point 2, this also happens when one has slates. A rash of acclaimed directors happen often every few years at SFU and other student unions and seems to be more related to the level of activity and controversy surrounding the previous year than the election system.
As for point 3, sure. But it also gives independents a better shot, I figure.
Is this the same Aaron Takhar who ran on a slate called RAF,(Reduce All Fees)at Kwantlen. And aren't these the same guys I saw at Douglas having meetings in Joey Hansen's office? Isn't this the same slate that went on to embroil the Kwantlen Student Association in one or more forensic audits?
Titus' point 3 is the key one in my mind. As far as I am concerned the consequences of the no-slate policy remain unclear at best. The 2007 election dynamic was warped because of all the incumbents. The 2008 election will be the true test.
Also, as an IEC person, I'd just like to say that the ban brings with it several logisitical concerns for those of us who monitor the elections. As Titus said, people who want to work together will work together one way or another. If people want to have strategy meetings in their apartments to plot and scheme- something currently not allowed by the rules- then there is really little the IEC can do to stop it. Slates are usually composed of a gang of friends to some degree. Since we can't very well make friendship illegal, in future elections there will likley be still be defacto slates of homies running together, though each nominally independent. Everyone will know that candidate A is friends with candidate B, that they favor each others' election, and they will be close allies once in office. But "officially" this won't be the case. Which is a bit of a farce.
So, basically, at the end of the day you can have a "ban on slates" that really boils down to little more than a ban on joint funding and a ban on posters that look similar. It might be enough to change election dynamics a bit, but if the aim was to dramatically alter the SFSS political culture I can't see how successful it will be.
This post was begging for a reply by me...
Let us assume a couple of things to begin with (naturally, people will disagree with these assumptions, but so be it):
1. The executive branch of government traditionally works better when competitors aren't forced to work together.
2. Exclusivity of student government positions is inherently bad because it causes otherwise qualified persons to self-select themselves from becoming involved.
3. The inevitable conclusion of party or slate based systems working in a first-past-the-post framework is a two-party system, either in practice or in actuality, and that serves to reduce choice.
Those were the principles underlying the decision of the AMS to ban slates so here's some arguments for how it does that:
A. You are not electing a parliament but a series of individual positions on a board of directors. There is no functional system in the world that automatically forces the executive branch to split its powers between members of different parties. Either the party with the biggest presence in parliament selects the entirety of the executive branch, or the parliament confirms the nominations of an independent elected head of state. The relevant comparison to Boards like the SFSS is the commissioner-based system of local government where city council consists of the police commissioner, sanitation commissioner, planning commissioner, etc. This is largely seen as an ineffective system when there are factions holding different portfolios of the council because there's no requirement to work together and people retreat into their fiefdoms. The reason these factions are more difficult when they're the result of different parties is because when the woman from Party A was running for sanitation commissioner, she was running against every single other member of Party B and not just the member of Party B going for sanitation. Again, what functional system in the world requires you to work with people that you were actively running against? It's a recipe for disaster, and largely the problem that occurred at the AMS.
B. Slates are inherently exclusive. Sometimes there can be nomination meetings, etc. but usually it just requires that people that are already there like you. In itself, this isn't a problem, but it becomes a huge problem when you consider the next point.
C. The AMS had developed a two-party system over time. The US has a rigid two-party system. Canada has effectively had a two party system. So has Britain. In countries that use first-past-the-post, two-party systems tend to dominate, at least in the minds of voters. The horse race tends to mean that unless you're casting a vote for one of the two leading parties, you will be wasting your vote. Not a problem if the two party system is firmly entrenched through the same slate brands running year after year (and not even necessarily a problem if you move away from first-past-the-post) but it can be a huge problem once the dominant slate entrenches itself.
This power produces three anti-democratic behaviours - the first is that you give de facto power to slate leaders to decide which candidates the voters will see (see Point B), and the second is that voters will not have a rational choice to vote outside the two leading slates. Beyond that, if voters honestly believe that one slate has a better candidate for a position than the slate it prefers, how should it react when the slates are saying, both explicitly and implicitly, that they have no desire to work with one another?
The third anti-democratic behaviour is that candidates will just choose not to run because they don't think they can compete against a large slate, or because they have no idea how to get on a slate.
D. Slates have enormous advantages over individual candidates that they cannot possibly compete against except in *very* exceptional circumstances - primarily in brand development and financing. Handbills and posters that refer to all candidates are a great way multiplying your exposure by n where n = the number of candidates in the slate. If you have 15 people in your slate and the ability to divide costs and/or exceed spending through cross-promotion, independents can't compete.
Those are the big arguments, but now I'll just respond to Titus's criticisms (mostly because I find complaints about anti-democratic behaviour from Mr. Takhar to be hilarious):
1. Banning slates is anti-democratic
Non-partisan elections, as they are known, are allowed throughout the United States and have not been successfully challenged under the US constitution. Freedom of association and freedom of speech has limits, especially when they can serve to undermine the democracy that they are meant to protect. This is a straw man argument.
2. Many student unions have a dozen positions elected campus-wide and positions would be uncontested or vacant
That's definitely a possibility but is there not something inherently wrong with the idea that people had to be recruited to the positions in order to develop interest? Changing some of those positions to appointed ones may be appropriate, or doing a much better job of communications with the student body would also be good. Either way, I don't see how depending on slate leaders to find people to fill positions is a signal of a healthy democracy.
3. Banning slates just obscures what happens anyway
To this I say "good." The rules shouldn't ban all forms of collaboration - as JJ says, that's impossible to police - but should ban the kinds that people can see. If people within the hack culture of the student union knows who is on a slate or not, who cares? It's the voters that matter the most. Unfortunately the SFSS took out the "real or apparent" clause. That clause has proven very useful for inculcating a culture of fear amongst the candidates (i use the term jokingly) and they have rigorously self-policed as a result. Eventually candidates discover it's not particularly worthwhile being in a hidden slate. And even if that still occurs, you're not spending every day of your campaign talking about how bad a guy is that you may have to work with.
That being said, there are absolutely ways that slate systems can work. I see Queen's as being the best example because they conform to the three principles I identify at the outset:
1. One slate, one vote. You only cast a single vote for the team you want to win, so there's no divided executive.
2. Team names are regulated. If Titus Gregory, Aaron Takhar, and Shawn Hunsdale ran, it would be Team GTH by regulation. This prevents the horse race because there aren't brands that carry over from year to year, which reduces the exclusivity of entry onto a slate. A place like SFU could have slates register and then three days before the campaign they're randomly assigned to Team Blue, Team Orange, etc. so brand development doesn't matter.
3. I don't think it's by regulation and maybe just tradition but it doesn't seem that many incumbents run again.
A model that includes at least the first two elements would likely be an acceptable slate system. When slates were banned at UBC there was some talk of moving to one slate, one vote and while I know I would have been comfortable with such a model, it wasn't possible given the structure of the bylaws.
PS - to correct Matthew, only SPAN had nomination contests, but they were done secretly. SFS never did. Neither party had conventions.
Spencer just has a thing against slates cause he could never win an election until they were banned. That's not a knock on him - lots of people run in elections and don't win, but he ran what, 2, 3, 4 times when slates were banned and never got in?
But what happens when slates are banned? Candidates who are newer to the union and can't have an ally to help them navigate the campaign trail don't run effective campaigns and only consummate insiders, people who have been hanging around the union offices for years and year, those are the people who get in. So you reduce the chance that someone who has shown their student leadership in any other field - the women's centres, the Jewish student association or black student association or some other cultural club, the varsity athlete - all these people are essentially locked out of getting into the SU when they have to run their own campaigns and cannot run on a team that has some people with student union experience and some people with outside experience.
What you do is make the SU culture the ultimate clique, closed to outsiders. Sorry Spencer. I don't think you should have to hang out in the student union for five years before you're qualified to be on the executive.
Apologies, I do tend to use convention and nomination contest interchangeably. My mistake.
However, it did speak to the entrenchment of the Slates at the AMS.
To the comment that the absence of slates leads to cliques getting in: This is not the AMS experience. Under slates, the slates were groups of friends, led and largely populated by insiders.
This January, we had a VP running for President (successfully) against a would-be joke who ran a serious campaign to give Jeff competition.
For VP Admin, we had an AMS councillor (winner), a caveman, and the previous VP's Vice-Chair. None had AMS election experience.
For VP Finance, we had two commerce students, one the Vice-Chair (who won), the other an utter outsider, neither with elections experience.
At VP External, we had a residence advisor, someone from the Resource Groups, an ex-athlete, and an AMS councillor with well-known (internally) political ties. The latter won, but not by much, and was the only one with anything close to election experience.
At VP Academic & University Affairs, we had a new councillor from the resource groups (who won), an outsider, and a candidate who's now run for office unsuccessfully three years straight (he finished third).
These candidates came from a fairly good cross-section of the student body. Some worked together, and discussed campaign platforms, strategies, etc.. I ran for another race, and helped out or advised several of these candidates, in some cases multiple candidates running against each other. The insiders did not always win, few candidates had run in an AMS election before, and those with campaign experience did not all win.
The executive has members who support all three main federal parties, and they seem to work together quite well. Without slates, the executive can work together as a team. Under the slate system, it was advantageous to sabotage other execs' work and collect dirt on them for future elections.
In my opinion, most of the advantages of slates can be worked into a well-designed slateless election system.
(For those not at UBC, "resource groups" = Womyn's Centre, Colour Connected, Social Justice Centre, Pride, etc.)
so wait a minute, how many people on the AMS executive for next year had not been a councillor, executive member, or staffer of the AMS or an AMS funded subsidiary group?
it seems your president, vp admin, vp finance and vp university affairs were all on AMS exec, council or committees. Those are total insiders. Only 1/5 execs came from outside the student union structure.
Banning slates is an absolutely good thing when it prevents in the future a group of insidious morons who look like, sound like, or smell like Shawn Hunsdale, Margo Dunnett, Glyn Lewis, Wei Li, Vanessa Kelly and Marion Pollock from ever banding together, getting elected, and using their majority to almost bankrupt and destroy a student society in 6 short months.
Somebody pass me the Lysol, the stench of their former presence still permeates the Student Society Offices.
Anon. 10:03 -
I'll just note that I was against having slates from before I first ran for office, and I hated that twice I had to be a part of a slate in order to try to win and create meaningful change.
As for the year I was elected, my VP Finance had never held an AMS position, nor did one of my BoG reps or 4/5 of the members of Senate.
The Fire Hydrant also gave some good analysis about this year's elections. The thing to note shouldn't be that these people had to spend years and years inside to get elected, but *one* year. People value experience with the system, and even more so when there's only a single year to get what you want accomplished. The AMS is an immensely complex organization. That being said, Council elections constantly involve outsiders being elected and since council is the AMS board of directors, that does lend counterbalance to the inside nature of those people with one year of experience. It should be noted, of course, that those council elections also have no slates.
If the only goal is to prevent "morons" from assuming office, as Anonymous 11:47 says, then we may as well just abolish elections altogether. Then we can proclaim Titus absolute monarch and just get him to appoint only the most learn'd elites to staff his inner privy council.
"If the only goal is to prevent "morons" from assuming office, as Anonymous 11:47 says, then we may as well just abolish elections altogether. Then we can proclaim Titus absolute monarch and just get him to appoint only the most learn'd elites to staff his inner privy council."
Plato's Republic it is then!
unrelated question to current post...
has anybody heard anything about the supposed "national student conference" (ccsa...federation of candaian students...whatever) that Malaspina is supposed to be hosting? I mean, Malaspina doesn't even have a current website?!?!?
"Banning slates is an absolutely good thing when it prevents in the future a group of insidious morons".
Who are we to dictate who should and shouldn't represent students. If they are really morons then they probably won't be able to get elected and the student body can decide that, through a true democratic process.
Well, Hunsdale, Dunnet, Li, Lewis, Pollock, Kelly, and Halpern got themselves elected, and I think that they're morons. Thankfully democracy did correct that aberration.
Spencer, wrt your point A, there do exist models where you have direct election to positions where you don't have a guarantee of partisan coherence: elections for the executive branch in most US states. One can certainly have partisan splits between, say, the Governor, the Education Commissioner, and the Insurance Commissioner (to pick an arbitrary example).
Of course, I'm not about to claim that this is by any means optimal, but such systems do at least exist....
-- Jones
Chris, I grant you that they exist, as I mentioned in my municipal example. However it may be worth pointing out that such a split executive branch could be interpreted as one of the reasons the states are so ineffective at resisting federal encroachment of state jurisdiction, or, you know, providing effective government services.
I also fully accept that this argument of mine is susceptible to a post hoc ergo propter hoc criticism but I'm merely posing it as a logically coherent reason.
Former Kwantlen student president charged in Vanderhoof drug crash
By Kevin Diakiw
May 18 2007
The former head of Kwantlen's student association is one of the men facing drug charges following last weekend's high-profile crash of a Ford Escape into a river in Vanderhoof, which left a Richmond man missing and another local arrested.
Surrey's Aaron Singh Takhar, 22, was allegedly driving a Mercedes-Benz that accompanied the Ford, which was found carrying 170 marijuana plants after it crashed in the Nechako River.
One occupant of the Ford, Richmond's Pritpal Singh Virk, 18, was treated for hypothermia and arrested, and another remains missing after the rented Ford plunged into the river, 50 miles west of Prince George.
Still missing is Richmond's Daljit Sandhu, 19, who was the alleged driver of the Ford, which along with a Mercedes-Benz, was pulled over during a routine road check around 3:30 a.m. Saturday in downtown Vanderhoof.
Despite an extensive search for Sandhu, which commenced within 20 minutes of the crash, he has not been found. Sandhu is five feet seven inches tall, and weighs about 185 pounds and was last seen wearing dark clothing.
RCMP divers deemed the river too dangerous to search.
Takhar, 22, was charged with production of a controlled substance, possession for the purpose of trafficking and trafficking a controlled substance. He remains in custody pending a Thursday bail hearing.
In addition, Virk faces charges of obstruction of justice, as well as marijuana production, possession and trafficking. Virk, who was rescued from the river, also remains in custody after being uncooperative with investigators.
Takhar made headlines last year when he became embroiled in legal battle over the results of Kwantlen University Students Association elections.
He was chair of the association in 2005, and according to court documents, served as "executive adviser" to Kwantlen Students Association last year.
He hasn't had political affiliations with Kwantlen since that time.
A person answering the phone at Takhar's Newton home said he hasn't seen him in about a week.
"No, we haven't heard from him," said the man who said he's a friend of Takhar.
Meanwhile, Vanderhoof Mounties are asking for the public's assistance in locating Sandhu.
Anyone with information about his whereabouts are asked to call CrimeStoppers at 1-800-222-8477.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home