Democracy at UMSU is dead
A proposal for electoral reform
JOEY COLEMAN
It is now official, democracy at UMSU is dead. Democracy requires elections. Elections require candidates, and a truly democratic election is not pre-determined by the players. Here at UMSU, it is pre-determined by the players.
The first step towards getting democracy back at the U of M is to have a democratic election, not one that is run by people friendly to the CFS in order to give undue advantage to the slate that is friendly to the CFS. UMSU must create standards and a process for hiring a chief returning officer (CRO) who is above reproach.
The chief returning officer for the recently concluded UMSU election suffered from a conflict of interest, and so did the only candidate for president. The CRO because of her previous involvement with the CFS, which connects her to Amanda Aziz, whose campaign manager was Garry Sran who is in a conflict of interest because he was involved in the process that hired the CRO. They both knew they were in conflicts of interest and neither one seems to have cared enough to remove themselves from the process. Instead of putting the greater good first, they have put their own interests (and the interests of the Canadian Federation of Students) ahead of U of M students.
There was a time not long ago when UMSU hired a professional, non-biased CRO with Elections Canada experience. The CRO was unpopular with all sides, having equally enforced the rules without worry about candidates’ feelings or how it would affect the outcome. In 2005, the CRO made rulings against the posters of both sides, one side for violating copyright, the other for having too many posters in a building. That is the way it should be. Instead, we have a CRO whose main qualification is past experience with the University of Winnipeg Student's Association and the CFS. UMSU is not alone with this. Many students at York, U of Toronto, and Ryerson see the same pattern at their schools.
The next step is electoral reform. It is understandable that people of similar views decide on one candidate to represent those views. It is likely that good people who are left-of- centre politically have thought about running for UMSU president but decide against it out of fear of being blamed for “splitting the vote.” I will call this the “Nader effect.” There are people that still blame Ralph Nader for George Bush being president, just as Republicans blamed Ross Perot for Clinton.
The “Nader effect” must be neutralized. UMSU needs to have a preferential ballot. This will prevent vote-splitting, encouraging more candidates, and more choice for students. It will result in students choosing the candidates they prefer with the knowledge that they are not helping candidates they do not want to see win.
The preferential ballot allows people to rank candidates based on who they prefer to win. When ballots are counted, the last-placed candidate is eliminated after each round of counting. The ballots for that candidate are taken and redistributed based on the voters’ second choices. This continues until one candidate has 50 per cent plus one of the total votes cast — a true majority.
British Columbia held a series of public hearing into electoral reform and created a Citizens’ Assembly to report on reforms. The assembly recommended a variant of preferential balloting. It went to a provincial referendum, and failed: 57 per cent were in favour, but it required a 60 per cent majority to pass. Ontario has formed a Citizens’ Assembly to investigate electoral reform.
A preferential ballot has another side benefit: it puts independent candidates with good ideas at an advantage. It helps to prevent cliques from forming, or the appearance of cliques that occurs due to slates.
Slates are another big problem. The best candidate should be elected to each position, and every student should have an equal opportunity of being elected. The slate system prevents this. The slate system benefits political insiders and creates a method of control for the people in power. The reality is that if one wants to get elected, one must be on a slate. The slate with the greatest advantage is the one which has incumbents on it. This means that if one wants to move up, one must be on good terms with the executive. This stifles debate and independence on council, ultimately harming UMSU, and by extension, students.
The best solution to this is not to ban slates altogether, but to balance the advantages of being in a slate with the disadvantages of being an independent. The University of Alberta Students’ Union has done a very good job of balancing this. Slates have less money per individual to spend than an independent. This means that if slates form, they are not able to drown out the voices of independent students.
With a slate, very little substantive debate occurs at the executive level, resulting in less accountability. This is why many students’ unions are doing away with slates completely. Simon Fraser Students’ Society and the students’ union at University of British Columbia have recently done so.
Finally, clear rules must be made that prevent outside interference in UMSU elections. When individuals friendly to, or associated with, the CFS assist a slate, they are creating an unfair playing field for U of M students who wish to run. Let’s face it; most of us cannot call in some professional campaigners free of charge to campaign for us. We have to convince our friends to help us campaign. It is hard enough to get them away from World of Warcraft to go out to a club, imagine how hard it is to get them to campaign!
In short, UMSU elections need to be run by U of M students for U of M students. The student politicians must put the interests of students and student democracy before their own interests and ideology. I think I have found Sran a good goal for his second term.
Joey Coleman was the 2004-05 UMSU representative for St. Andrews College. Currently a student at McMaster University, he blogs regularly on student politics at joeycoleman.ca.
