UTSU Election 2010: Hindsight is 20/20 Retrospective
March 20th, 2010 by Joseph UranowskiAfter three days of voting, the UTSU 2010 Election results are in. “Stronger Together” won five out of the five executive positions with “Change UofT” winning 7 BOD spots. Approximately 16.4% of the 44,000 undergrads who attend the University of Toronto voted (which is a lower turnout than the 2006 municipal election in my home town of Whitby Ontario). President-elect Adam Awad received 58.24% of the votes cast for President which means only 9.3% of U of T students voted for him.
With this in mind, let me be the first person to arrogantly prescribe a complete overhaul of the political system here at U of T. Here, in no particular order, is what I would change:
Scrap 90% of the EPC:
If the University of Toronto consistently gets one thing right, it’s treating us like adults. The UTSU Elections Procedures Code does the exact opposite. The EPC assumes that voters at the best University in the country won’t be able to recognize false information on a poster or punish candidates who have annoying literature. It lets Adam Awad and Steve Masse run on their records but denies either campaign the ability to question their opponent’s past performance. Before the next election, the UTSU should remove the prohibition of pre-campaigning, allow for negative campaigning and unfetter the candidates. The institution of the University is built on a philosophy of intelligent and honest debate. The EPC’s definition of “fair play” is so narrow that candidates are prevented from really interacting with each other, segregating their ideas and stopping them from entering the political sphere.
The UTSU can keep the rules that facilitate the actual casting of votes but should remove all of the rules that get in the way of what. While this doesn’t require a completely libertarian UTSU electoral process, new rules can and must be brought in as the status-quo is rigid and counter-democratic.
Formalize official UTSU Political Parties:
If you want to engage students in the political process, make it openly partisan. In the 2010 election various clubs picked sides and both sides engaged in behind-the-scenes negative campaigning. If pre-campaigning was no longer prohibited opposition groups would actually have a chance at winning (there has been a 100% incumbency rate over the last five years) and it would make the UTSU visible all year, not just during the elections. The EPC has very strict spending rules, which are intended to level the playing field. If political parties were formalized (they already sort-of exist but only in the shadows) and students fund raised (limited to donations from U of T students only) it would further increase interest in the political process. Members of the UTSU executive are visible and get to campaign-without-really-campaigning in office. If political parties existed (with rules prohibiting affiliation with any outside political party) every candidate would be incentivized to have a full-fleshed out platform with a website that exists all year (I’d like to clarify that I am not anti-point form but ST/Change could have done a lot better) instead of creating a website in a rush, from scratch with low site-traffic.
Political parties will level the playing field, engage more students all-year-round and raise the level of debate to one appropriate for the University of Toronto.
Hold Real Debates:
The debate this year was excellent but only hardcore political science nerds (like me) watched the whole thing in one sitting (I watched it thrice). The current debate rules put even more focus on the slates that run which makes it even harder for a third-party candidate/independent to run. There should be separate debates for each executive position and each college/faculty should hold a public debate between their Board of Directors candidates. These debates should be taken seriously (not audience “hooting”/”hollering”) with a moderator asking all the questions, not the supporters from each side trying to burn their opponents.
Create a continuous U of T news cycle – all day everyday:
News at U of T is painfully slow. The Varsity and The Newspaper have great websites but they still only release articles twice a week or so. “The Mike”, the paper at my college, doesn’t have a website which is the same for several other student newspapers. Proposing a 24 Hour News network at U of T sounds slightly ridiculous but better online coverage could be done effectively and quickly. A news aggregator National Newswatch and Canada News Desk could be set up for all of U of T. All of my classes offer some form of online interaction but news at U of T (like the EPC) has yet to catch up to Web 2.0. BlogUT has taken a great first step in covering the election but this needs to be built upon, quickly. Better election coverage would increase voter turnout which would benefit the UTSU as they draw their strength as representatives from an engaged population of students/citizens.
Make the CRO completely independent:
The CRO is chosen by the UTSU. There has yet to be a case at the U of T where the CRO skewed the election but the selection process must be above reproach.
Institute Term Limits:
100% incumbency rate. A higher turnover would bring fresh ideas to the UTSU and would prevent the UTSU from having the appearance of being a “clique.”
Double the size of the BOD and make the UTSU more parliamentary:
There are 30 positions on the UTSU Board of Directors but I have yet to find an average student who knew exactly what they do. The UTSU Executive needs to give more power back to its committees and adding more members would help give a voice to colleges/faculties who feel underrepresented. There is no real separation of powers for the UTSU, and this needs to change.
Publish the UTSU’s meeting minutes:
Currently the UTSU does not publish their minutes online. Over the last two years outside groups have tried to change this at the UTSU’s Annual General Meeting(s) but the UTSU has vehemently resisted this. The UTSU should start publishing the minutes from their meetings and pursue a policy of increased transparency. The University of Toronto Students’ Union holds many rallies/campaigns throughout the year. Low voter turnout and the appearance that the UTSU is intentionally opaque in its operations decrease their legitimacy which puts them on a lower ground when advocating for students. It is the little things that matter, and meeting minutes are one of these “little things.”
Elect the VP Campus Life:
The VP Campus Life is an appointed position though he/she has the same amount of power and responsibility as the other executives and also receives a salary. The change from an elected to an appointed VP Campus Life was recent and is the most anachronistic facet of the UTSU (that is not the EPC.)
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
The University of Toronto Students’ Union gets around $72 a year from each of its 44 000 students. The 10 candidates who ran for executive positions this year were all intelligent, engaged, sincere and serious about the UTSU and U of T.
Unfortunately the UTSU Election process is one where students are not engaged, the debate is neither intelligent nor sincere. It is time to get serious.
From the day I started at U of T, five years ago, to today not a week has gone by when I have not been told, read or said myself, that I am going to the best university in the country. We are all here to become citizens of the world, people who explore every side of an issue and are constantly searching for the truth.
16.4% voter turnout is a sign that something is very wrong with the polity that is U of T.
————————————————————————————————————————————————
Note: The opinions of this blog are mine and mine alone, they do not reflect the views of BlogUT. In the interest of logistics if anyone wants to debate what I’ve written further please feel free to do so on my blog www.equivocator.ca.
March 20th, 2010 at 10:17 pm
Agree on a lot of points here but let me point out a few that really resonate with me.
You mentioned having year-round websites for each political party instead of a rushed one that pops out of nowhere for a week or two. I think that’s a brilliant idea as a heavy majority of the students are unaware of what the UTSU elections are all about and how it affects them. Websites and videos suddenly appear at a time when everyone is drowning with essays and final exams and really too damn busy to even care. Having information outlets available throughout the year about these platforms and the electoral process really does have the potential of spiking student interest. If the dialogue on these issues can be sustained all year round instead of just a couple of weeks in mid to late March, why not? Isn’t that the better way?
The idea of having a continuous U of T news cycle ties in closely and quite perfectly with this actually. Students need sources of information before they can even be interested. Again, having this information easily accessible and at the students’ disposal increases (I think) the likelihood of students being more involved and actually caring about what is going on on campus. I feel and hope that blogUT will have a role here in the years to come. But like I mentioned to you earlier, there’s the difficulty of trying to get our bloggers to blog as frequently as as possible on relevant issues. It’s something that we at blogUT are working towards and even developing a strategy for.
I was also thinking, if these propositions become a reality, there’s the possibility of reducing the heavy campaigning outside Sid Smith and other locations that students hate so much. I’ve avoided campaigners and know a lot of other peeps out there that have done the same and its just a waste of time and energy for both parties. Of course, there still needs to be that form of campaigning but with social media, campaigning doesn’t have to be so pervasive and aggressive…students can take in the information at their own time and at their own pace instead of having candidates in their face trying to sum up everything they believe in in 2 minutes before heading over to class. I’m a huge believer in web 2.0. and the possibilities it can afford in electoral campaigns…it’s just a matter of finding a way to leverage the new tools available to us!
March 20th, 2010 at 10:17 pm
That was the longest comment I’ve ever posted anywhere. Ever.
March 21st, 2010 at 3:21 am
1) Scrap 90% of the EPC – Ok, but slander and libel should still be prohibited. Unreasonable to expect students to have to get lawyers to defend their rights, and offences would surely be a problem otherwise.
2) Formalize UTSU Parties – Joe, I love you, but thats the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. It’s a SAC election, not parliament, and it will surely lead to the same kind of ‘cliquishness’ you deride elsewhere. Plus the overwhelming majority of students are too young to identify along party lines. Except Gabe.
3) Hold real debates – Yes, and several. Moderators should be students or legitimate community members. I nominate the EIC’s of The Varsity and The Newspaper and the prez’ of ASSU and APUS.
4) Continuous news cycle – We have that, its called youtube. Let’s not add another layer of abstraction to the speech process, when truly third party internet outlets certainly exist. Also, real news takes time and research. Reporters are already pressed by deadlines, lets not exacerbate that problem. I might go so far as to suggest increasing the levy of both campus papers, especially The Newspaper, which currently operates on $0.
5) Make the CRO independent – Yes, definitely. The union and the admins should agree on a lawyer, maybe one of our young graduates, and the cost should be split by both.
6) Term limits – Every executive should be elected for a two year term, and you can only serve one term. You get 24 months straight to accomplish your goals, and you only ever have to worry getting elected once, before taking office. BoD elections remain yearly.
7) Double the size of the BoD – Doubling might be alot, just add all of the college presidents as defacto directors for their college constituency, and add three clubs spots. Thats 10 new seats. Eliminate proxy voting.
9) Elect VP Campus Life – Neutral. Clubs interactions are mostly handled by Vita, and she’s great. If clubs had three seats on the board, they can represent themselves, and we can convert this to a VP Sustainability, which would be elected.
Last thing: 16.4% voter turnout is a huge jump from last year, and I’m taking all the credit, lol.
March 21st, 2010 at 1:19 pm
Re: Antonin.
I don’t want this to devolve into an ad hominem based debate but I do feel an obligation to call you on labeling one of my ideas “dumb.”
The same flawed logic that compels you to state that “students are too young to identify along party lines” is what makes the EPC so restrictive/terrible.
We come to this university at 17 years old. By the time the UTSU elections are held the university/the law/society considers us responsible adults. Your assertion is further contradicted by the presence of so many political groups on campus. Voter turnout at the federal, provincial and municipal level for people at the average age of a university-attendee’s is embarrassingly low. The education we receive at U of T should be one that not only prepares us to contribute to the economy but make us responsible citizens.
Eliminating proxy voting and raising the levy for both campus papers are two fantastic ideas.
March 21st, 2010 at 3:03 pm
Joe,
The point is not about whether or not students identify along party lines. A certain, small, number certainly do, and I think that’s terrific, and I encourage youth participation in municipal, provincial, and federal politics, where the party system is clearly necessary. This is a student council election, lets not dress it up to be a staging ground for future political ambition. We have that already and it is getting us nowhere.
However, my goal in all of this is simple: I want any student of U of T to have a legitimate shot at holding the executive positions of the UTSU. Your suggestion only protracts that ambition. Furthermore, there is nothing stopping anyone from campaigning as “Liberals for UTSU”. If you want to identify along party lines you should be free to. Under no circumstances should that party affiliation be necessary. That’s extremely restrictive, ergo “dumb”. You haven’t answered how you’ll mitigate ‘cliquishness’, which is one of your complaints.
I am not interested in trading one master, the CFS, for another, Lib-Con-NDP or “Change” parties. Remember that the CFS didn’t invent these tactics, they simply borrowed them from the NDP. As such, outside campaigners would flood our campus if we integrated our system with the national party system. Bet on it.
In addition, if any party system were introduced to U of T, that will unnecessarily hinder new candidates with baggage left by past candidates. Notice that this happened to Change in multiple CRO rulings. Notice the CFS team always chooses a new name for their parties, specifically to obscure past transgressions by executives like, say, proxy fraud. Besides, “Change” may still be new concept now, but assume they won 5 years worth of consequential elections, that name wouldn’t mean anything, in fact it would be laughable.
I am a fan of your idea of expanding the campaigning period, even maybe starting in September. This would allow for the establishment of a “party” with a regular message, website, criticisms, and communications with anyone keen enough to inform themselves. This would allow for further ‘party alignment’ should any candidates choose to go that route.
To recap: there is no need to burden anyone with mandatory party affiliations. If one choses to affiliate along those lines, they are free to do so already, as Change did this year.
Lastly, ad hominem implies that I am attacking you and not the question. I begin by stating “Joe, I love you” continuing to “[#2 is] the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard”. I attack the idea, not the person. I still love you Joe, but let’s make sure we understand the words we use.
I admire your commitment to improving our governmental processes at the University and I genuinely hope that we can one day sit down in a more formal setting and bang out these ideas and have them applied. Clearly, we cannot trust UTSU when it comes to internal policing.
March 21st, 2010 at 9:06 pm
Political parties would be the worse thing to ever happen to UofT. You will have one set of students benifitting and getting what they want and others not. UTSU should represent all students, it will be worse than it is now. Before you know it we have corporate sponsors and teams reflecting the Canadian governemnt parties.
I agree with the other things. I think the main problem is lack of voter turnout, we need to get the students believing that UTSU can do stuff for them and interested in the voting process. People only know that there is an election during voting days when everyone is out trying to get people to vote. I am not political science student but I watched the debate and it was embarrassing and a joke.
Better moderation, more advertising, engage commuter students. It seems that people on rez are more active in their colleges and these elections. I would even suggest a commuter executive.
I support activism but we need to keep it within the school. If you want to side with a group do it on your own. We don’t have to side with everything or take certain stances.
I am neither jewish or palestenain but having only pro palestine activities is not right, should have both so people could come together. We need to stop dividing and work together.
March 25th, 2010 at 9:21 am
[...] and “Stronger Together” — harassing campaigning all over campus for days. Stronger Together came out on top, winning all of the executive positions. The voter turnout was approximately only [...]