UMSU election no contest

Lack of competition, clarity likely factors in low voter turnout

Regan Sarmatiuk Staff

Another UMSU election has come and gone, and the students of the University of Manitoba have elected a new president, along with four vice-presidential positions, to head their union . . . or at least a small minority of students have.

Voter turnout was pathetically low, which is nothing new, but the fact that only 2871 votes (which would account for approximately 10 per cent of students) were cast for the presidential position — 1982 voted in favour of eventual winner Garry Sran, 710 voted for Patrick Smith, and 179 ballots were spoiled — is somewhat discouraging. It is also about 1100 less than last year’s total.

While the mystery of student apathy towards electing those officials that will oversee UMSU’s affairs (and $10 million budget) is a complex one that likely does not have one simple answer, it is more than safe to assume that lack of competition in this most recent election, coupled with extensive and potentially confusing changes to election bylaws were both factors in the lower voter turnout.

While some might argue (and our comment editor does argue) that the newly-elected UMSU executive isn’t ideal, it is no surprise that Garry Sran’s “choice for more” slate won by a hefty margin, given the alternative option and lack of any real contest on behalf of the Smith/Barnby slate.

Before campaigning even began, Smith and Jim Barnby, who was running for vice-president internal, were given a 24-hour suspension for an apparently inadvertent violation of election by-laws that seemed to stem from ignorance of simple UMSU-sanctioned procedures.

Perhaps more costly suspensions came during voting time, especially considering the fact that UMSU bylaws were amended for this election to allow for campaigning during the March 1-3 voting period. Smith and Barnby forfeited the opportunity to urge voters on to the polls and were suspended for 24 hours beginning at 2 p.m. on March 1 in connection with their decision to show a video that was not approved by the overseer of the election, the chief returning officer. A second 24-hour violation came as a result of campaign volunteers distributing “unofficial” material, and began at 2 p.m. on March 2.

Smith and Barnby’s failure to stay within the confines of the rules detracted a great deal from any competition they might have provided for the “choice for more” slate.

Beyond that, Smith and Barnby chose to run as a two-person slate rather than a five-person slate. While each of the slates were unofficial and candidates were elected individually, this shortage of slate-mates meant that three of four VP positions went uncontested, and that the “choice for more” slate was automatically more well-rounded. Smith and Barnby also had less visibility in general, in terms of both posters and presence in university centre.

In terms of professionalism, while Smith may have managed to impress some in this category, even in spite of the several violations to election by-laws, Barnby did not. When asked why he was qualified to deal with UMSU’s $10 million budget by the Manitoban during a UMFM candidate’s forum, Barnby cited his experience as the captain of his high school football team, along with his experience being a member of UMSU (all U of M students are members of UMSU). Obviously, it is difficult to see the connection between high school football captaincy and a position that involves overseeing a $10 million budget, even if said captaincy did develop some valuable leadership skills in Mr. Barnby.

But slagging the election rookies for failing to bring a more competitive spirit to the election doesn’t provide the entire picture as to why voter turnout was lower this year than last. Beyond the lack of serious competition from Smith and Barnby, the changes made to UMSU’s election bylaws likely caused confusion for many students and played a role in the collective apathy.

Changes to postering rules, including enforced limits in terms of quantity and designated locations served to reduce the visibility of the campaign very literally.

The reduction of polling stations undoubtedly played a huge role. In previous elections, stations were set up in every faculty and residence, while this election featured a measly ten stations across campus.

Even the structure of the slates along with the multiple ballots would be enough to confuse and discourage the average, mostly-disinterested student from voting. While electing all five positions, rather than just president and vice president, brings greater theoretical accountability to the VP positions, the unofficial, five-person slates are cumbersome, and likely were a source of confusion for more than one student.

Ultimately, some of the onus for the low voter turnout must fall to students themselves — no amount of hand-holding would be likely to move the entirely unwilling to head out to the polls. But more competition and greater clarity in terms of election structure and procedures would certainly not hurt.