The Insiders
-
Jan
27
Elections 2007: where is the Movement?
Posted by: Neal Yonson | January 27, 2007 | 26 Comments
I’d like to give my impressions on the election campaigns this past week.
First of all, I’m happy to see that the debates have improved by a lot – the debate structure has been changed to allow for elaborate answers, and the candidates in turn have done their homework.
The Wednesday VP Academic debate for example was highly impressive with Jerry Fan Fan and Brendon Goodmurphy having well thought out directions in terms of lobbying for student housing.
Despite of opponent Peter Rizov’s objections from the last debate, Brittany Tyson moved away from the “experience vs nonexperience” spat and focussed on her ideas including the AMS card, end of the day price drop at AMS food outlets, 99cent Pizza Fridays at Pir R Squared with donations to services, more support for the TACS assistant clinic. 
The Debate on Friday was distracting due to the Guitar Club having a full-out concert at the SUB concourse. To my surprise VP External Candidate Joel Koczawarski didn’t show, and his opponents Matt Naylor and Chris Brush both finished strong.
However it was hard for Tim and I to believe it was campaigning period. Why? Because we’ve seen no active campaigns this past week, with the one exception of Jeff Friedrich and his partner standing outside the SUB with a sign.
Sure, most corkboards on campus have been plastered with posters, and I’ve received a handful of emails from candidates soliciting votes. But I have seen zero classroom announcements, no flyering, no spectacles. This is political lobotomy!
Risking the label of UBC Dinosaur, I want to reflect back to the days when slates were still around. I ran with a slate, namely the now legendary (and infamous?) SPAN slate – Student Progressive Action Network.
A look back at slates…. behind the jump.
Planning started in November.
Former VP Admin Josh Bowman and VP Academic Laura Best who were both elected the previous year on SPAN spent an entire day informing us on the issues. There was a 40 page long information package on all of the issues from tuition to campus development to waste management of the SUB. Regardless of which position we ran for, we were well-informed on all of the issues.
We booked a theatre and practiced classroom announcements. We spent hours taking the perfect photo for our flyers, coloured overheads, and posters. There was one colour and a logo which identified us all. There were patches to be worn on bags, sweaters, and our support network was encouraged to wear them.
There was strength in numbers. Each of us had signed up at least 20 volunteers who were willing to flyer, poster, make classroom announcements. 
getting ready for a huge postering spree
We solicited the support from clubs, informal support from undergraduate society execs, and shook hands with sorority presidents. The campus was painted red – there were balloons tied to trees, patches, posters everywhere legal (and illegal?), we even had people flyering at the Broadway Skytrain station out in East Vancouver. 
Our campaign schedule started at 8am, and ended at 8pm on an early day. There were events to be attended thereafter: beer gardens, concerts, anywhere where we would expect UBC students to be.
I’m NOT saying that it’s impossible put on a similar campaign without a slate. It just takes a heck of a lot more work and a larger support group for one individual. The learning curve is ten times higher as there is no advice passed on in an institutional manner. Spencer Keys’ presidential race is a prime example of a well coordinated campaign – it was realised through the strong support of his peers. But then again, Spencer Keys had been trained by a slate prior, when he ran for VP Admin in 2003 and the next year for VP External with Students for Students (SFS). Either way, everyone knew his name. People who I didn’t know were interested in politics talked about Spencer Keys.
So it doesn’t feel like there’s a real election going on. There is no buzz in the air, and the energy seen in other years seems lost in antiquity. Where is the movement?
Comments
26 Comments so far
Two things:
1) I ran with a slate that knew how to win in 2003 but it didn’t know how to change course, which is why I lost. When I ran for VP External I said to hell with everything SFS taught me and did things my own way, which proved far more effective.
2) I agree that people don’t campaign the same way and it’s tragic. Something I’ve advocated for since before the slate ban even happened is something a few other schools do (though I can’t remember right now which ones) – candidate workshops. The pre-campaigning period is a perfect time for the Elections Committee to bring in experienced campaigners to run workshops on how to campaign to maximum effectiveness.
While you don’t need to campaign so hard to win, you need to campaign very hard to earn legitimacy in the eyes of the people at the AMS that you’ll be working with. Kevin’s turned out to be a fine president but there were definitely councillors in the first few months of his presidency that were not fully supportive, precisely because of his lacklustre campaign. And that support is crucial because you can’t afford a quarter of your term spent on gaining legitimacy.
Two things:
1) I ran with a slate that knew how to win in 2003 but it didn’t know how to change course, which is why I lost. When I ran for VP External I said to hell with everything SFS taught me and did things my own way, which proved far more effective.
2) I agree that people don’t campaign the same way and it’s tragic. Something I’ve advocated for since before the slate ban even happened is something a few other schools do (though I can’t remember right now which ones) – candidate workshops. The pre-campaigning period is a perfect time for the Elections Committee to bring in experienced campaigners to run workshops on how to campaign to maximum effectiveness.
While you don’t need to campaign so hard to win, you need to campaign very hard to earn legitimacy in the eyes of the people at the AMS that you’ll be working with. Kevin’s turned out to be a fine president but there were definitely councillors in the first few months of his presidency that were not fully supportive, precisely because of his lacklustre campaign. And that support is crucial because you can’t afford a quarter of your term spent on gaining legitimacy.
This post was beckoning for your commentary.
I’m impressed at the response rate though!
This post was beckoning for your commentary.
I’m impressed at the response rate though!
In slate days, tasks like postering were far easier, because you only had to hit a few buildings with 9 posters, instead of having to hit every building with one poster. Still, last year Hydrant appeared in front of about 15-20 classes and did some limited leafletting in the first week of campaigning (Darren spent week two at a conference in California, and no further campaigning was done).
With the VFM and compressed campaign period this year, I’ve had to spend far more time dealing with media. This blog alone can easily take an hour a day, if there’s something I want to leave a lengthy comment on. Instead of one irrelevent Ubyssey question, now about 11 media outlets want questionnaires filled out (5-10 questions of substance). Some want in-person interviews on top of that, many weren’t organized in time to get this done in the week before campaigning was allowed, and most have no idea what Board is (so I can either answer irrelevent questions or correct them).
On top of this, I’m still on various committees, Board met for committees and full Board the past two weeks, I TA a lab course, and I have work to do in my own lab (e.g. a 34-page article that had to be proofread for publication).
The upshot is I’ve had time to do exactly two classroom announcements (hopefully more Monday/Tuesday). I didn’t bother with leafletting because I doubt it accomplishes much and I’m no good at it.
If anyone’s paying attention to the VFMs, they probably have way more than enough information on me to form an opinion. Otherwise, there’s Facebook, or they may have heard of me or seen a poster. That’s about it.
I’d also like to point out that giving a serious classroom announcement is nowhere near as easy or fun as wheeling in a Fire Hydrant and cracking jokes for a minute.
–Darren Peets
In slate days, tasks like postering were far easier, because you only had to hit a few buildings with 9 posters, instead of having to hit every building with one poster. Still, last year Hydrant appeared in front of about 15-20 classes and did some limited leafletting in the first week of campaigning (Darren spent week two at a conference in California, and no further campaigning was done).
With the VFM and compressed campaign period this year, I’ve had to spend far more time dealing with media. This blog alone can easily take an hour a day, if there’s something I want to leave a lengthy comment on. Instead of one irrelevent Ubyssey question, now about 11 media outlets want questionnaires filled out (5-10 questions of substance). Some want in-person interviews on top of that, many weren’t organized in time to get this done in the week before campaigning was allowed, and most have no idea what Board is (so I can either answer irrelevent questions or correct them).
On top of this, I’m still on various committees, Board met for committees and full Board the past two weeks, I TA a lab course, and I have work to do in my own lab (e.g. a 34-page article that had to be proofread for publication).
The upshot is I’ve had time to do exactly two classroom announcements (hopefully more Monday/Tuesday). I didn’t bother with leafletting because I doubt it accomplishes much and I’m no good at it.
If anyone’s paying attention to the VFMs, they probably have way more than enough information on me to form an opinion. Otherwise, there’s Facebook, or they may have heard of me or seen a poster. That’s about it.
I’d also like to point out that giving a serious classroom announcement is nowhere near as easy or fun as wheeling in a Fire Hydrant and cracking jokes for a minute.
–Darren Peets
Honestly Darren, I don’t care. Students are busy – all students are busy. If you really wanted to campaign, you would campaign.
Everything you’re saying sounds like excuses.
Don’t count on VFM to carry you into the win.
Honestly Darren, I don’t care. Students are busy – all students are busy. If you really wanted to campaign, you would campaign.
Everything you’re saying sounds like excuses.
Don’t count on VFM to carry you into the win.
the fire hydrant should be retired
it’s like somebody telling you the same joke over and over and over
what about a campaign poster without a dorky picture?
it should be noted that the ubyssey publishes an annual all-candidates guide every year, largely out of pity for the ams.
and considering how many people actually voted for the fire hydrant, i’d say that makes you just about as irrelevant as a ubyssey question, big guy. or a lonely fire hydrant taking on toope.
the fire hydrant should be retired
it’s like somebody telling you the same joke over and over and over
what about a campaign poster without a dorky picture?
it should be noted that the ubyssey publishes an annual all-candidates guide every year, largely out of pity for the ams.
and considering how many people actually voted for the fire hydrant, i’d say that makes you just about as irrelevant as a ubyssey question, big guy. or a lonely fire hydrant taking on toope.
the “dorky picture” comment was an aside and not directed at the hydrant personally
the “dorky picture” comment was an aside and not directed at the hydrant personally
the banning of slates was part of an effort to make the AMS more conservative. conservative in terms of its goals, atmosphere, policy, rhetoric, and so on. the particular timing of the banning of slates shows that it was politically motivated – by those who wanted a more conservative AMS. it is not true that banning of slates was “apolitical” – or done with the goal of making coucil “not political”. it was a short-sighted, myopic, opportunist decision by conservative elitist people of privelege. but things are changing.
the banning of slates was part of an effort to make the AMS more conservative. conservative in terms of its goals, atmosphere, policy, rhetoric, and so on. the particular timing of the banning of slates shows that it was politically motivated – by those who wanted a more conservative AMS. it is not true that banning of slates was “apolitical” – or done with the goal of making coucil “not political”. it was a short-sighted, myopic, opportunist decision by conservative elitist people of privelege. but things are changing.
anon 11:47
your own rhetoric masks an interesting point – has slate banning made UBC more conservative?..and by conservative i mean “guarded and suspicious to active change.”
spencer, i never really knew that SPAN was just more AMSers in different (grubbier?) clothes and with better posters. lyle seemed like an outsider. i liked his skateboard motion.
but do you ever wonder if your citizens assembly thingy – i just read the one article in the ubyssey so long ago, so i’m not that familiar with the structure – was the yin to the banning slates yang? did banning slates do anything to change the fact that ams elections are largely determined by the votes of the bureaucrats? or are we left with a busted up system that still can’t attract the interest of students?
anon 11:47
your own rhetoric masks an interesting point – has slate banning made UBC more conservative?..and by conservative i mean “guarded and suspicious to active change.”
spencer, i never really knew that SPAN was just more AMSers in different (grubbier?) clothes and with better posters. lyle seemed like an outsider. i liked his skateboard motion.
but do you ever wonder if your citizens assembly thingy – i just read the one article in the ubyssey so long ago, so i’m not that familiar with the structure – was the yin to the banning slates yang? did banning slates do anything to change the fact that ams elections are largely determined by the votes of the bureaucrats? or are we left with a busted up system that still can’t attract the interest of students?
Darren: doing a classroom announcement as a joke candidate of any sort is way easier than a serious one… unless you’re the type of person that likes to stand up in front of hundreds of people and talk about what makes you great. of which i am not, and i don’t think you are either.
On Campaigning: the campaigns that slates rolled out obviously increased the chance that people would find out about the election, but i think there are some positives from the new laid back campaign style.
for one, i don’t think anybody who’s lost since slates were banned has ended up dropping any classes due to the amount that they skipped during campaign week. conversely, it was fairly regular for that to happen back in the day.
also, slate campaigning got obnoxious at many points. i’m sure it still happens on a smaller scale, but there was so much campaigning/smoozing at social events before. the last thing most sane people want when they’re at a beer garden is someone talking up their slate… don’t even get me started about the commerce bbq.
On Banning Slates: if it was some conservative power move, the right certainly did a bang up job of pulling the wool over the eyes of the “progressives.”
the five people who ran with or were on the campaign team for SPAN voted for the motion, conversely three of four Students of Students (the ‘right wing’ slate) alumnists voted against the motion
On Conservatism:
from a left/right perspective things varied from year to year with slates, and vary from year to year now. you need to keep in mind that a sizable majority of students (and probably an even larger proportion of student politicians) exist somewhere between the left wing of the NDP and right wing of the Liberal party. and it’s a rarity to find anyone who is socially conservative… or at least, outwardly socially conservative. i’m sure some people will suggest that’s a huge spectrum – and in some cases it certainly is – but considering the split between mostly bureaucratic issues and truly political ones, it’s really not that huge a deal, no matter which way you lean.
general competency is a far more important attribute than complete agreement on the political issues of the day. take the conversation pit… imo, one of the biggest failures to come out of council last year. that was never a question of left/right, it was a question of how it was possibly a good idea to put airport seating in a place where people generally enjoy congregating.
as far as whether the ams has become more “guarded and suspicious towards active change,” i don’t think there’s a huge shift there either. when the SPAN sweep came in, the exec certainly tried to shake some things up, but as far as structural change to the AMS, you’d be hard pressed to find someone who pushed for as many and as far reaching change as Spencer did when he was president.
Darren: doing a classroom announcement as a joke candidate of any sort is way easier than a serious one… unless you’re the type of person that likes to stand up in front of hundreds of people and talk about what makes you great. of which i am not, and i don’t think you are either.
On Campaigning: the campaigns that slates rolled out obviously increased the chance that people would find out about the election, but i think there are some positives from the new laid back campaign style.
for one, i don’t think anybody who’s lost since slates were banned has ended up dropping any classes due to the amount that they skipped during campaign week. conversely, it was fairly regular for that to happen back in the day.
also, slate campaigning got obnoxious at many points. i’m sure it still happens on a smaller scale, but there was so much campaigning/smoozing at social events before. the last thing most sane people want when they’re at a beer garden is someone talking up their slate… don’t even get me started about the commerce bbq.
On Banning Slates: if it was some conservative power move, the right certainly did a bang up job of pulling the wool over the eyes of the “progressives.”
the five people who ran with or were on the campaign team for SPAN voted for the motion, conversely three of four Students of Students (the ‘right wing’ slate) alumnists voted against the motion
On Conservatism:
from a left/right perspective things varied from year to year with slates, and vary from year to year now. you need to keep in mind that a sizable majority of students (and probably an even larger proportion of student politicians) exist somewhere between the left wing of the NDP and right wing of the Liberal party. and it’s a rarity to find anyone who is socially conservative… or at least, outwardly socially conservative. i’m sure some people will suggest that’s a huge spectrum – and in some cases it certainly is – but considering the split between mostly bureaucratic issues and truly political ones, it’s really not that huge a deal, no matter which way you lean.
general competency is a far more important attribute than complete agreement on the political issues of the day. take the conversation pit… imo, one of the biggest failures to come out of council last year. that was never a question of left/right, it was a question of how it was possibly a good idea to put airport seating in a place where people generally enjoy congregating.
as far as whether the ams has become more “guarded and suspicious towards active change,” i don’t think there’s a huge shift there either. when the SPAN sweep came in, the exec certainly tried to shake some things up, but as far as structural change to the AMS, you’d be hard pressed to find someone who pushed for as many and as far reaching change as Spencer did when he was president.
When I wake up from beer-induced nightmares, where do I turn? Tim and Gina’s blog crack.
1) I’ve already gone into a defense of slates here
2) The key votes for banning slates came from SPAN. They were of the opinion that the partisan tension was starting to infect most of our decisions, and they were right. That is the extent of the response that I’ll give to the ignorant post from Anon 11:47.
3) As for the student assembly, it didn’t get far, largely because there was not a strong appetite for it at Council and I had more pressing priorities. Something like the discussion created by VFM was probably a necessary precursor to having such an assembly. It was always intended as a way of reorienting the AMS to serving the ambitions of all UBC students and while I can’t say whether it would have made change more likely, it would have caused the AMS to be more representative. A lot of the “conservative” policies of the AMS are defended by saying things like, “If people listened to the argument, they’d agree.” Something like a student assembly would give us a ready and willing audience and if we couldn’t convince them, then we have no business advocating it for students. So it was intended to be a check on elitism. And if that ends up being a check on “conservatism” that’s fine, but it should also be recognized that there’s an equally good chance that it’ll enhance the voice of “conservatives.” At least the student style ones.
4) I think the ban has exposed a previously hidden problem, which is that the health of AMS democracy was very poor. The same number of people are going to the polls (10% higher last year over the year before) but now they only vote on the races that they feel they have the knowledge to vote on. So is it busted up? Debatable. Are elections determined by the insiders? Unquestionably, but that’s the way it was before. My campaigns had two phases: convince the elites I should win in the first half, convince the people to vote in the second. It rested on the correct assumption that asking your friend that’s involved in the AMS will be a better determinant of vote choice than a poster, and that will create a buzz. It’s very “The Tipping Point.”
I think that as long as the AMS is (mostly) governed by the executives of constituencies (AUS,SUS, EUS, CUS, etc.) it’s going to be conservative. Councillors are more interested in keeping meetings short, the time they spend on the AMS low, and their control high.
And at the risk of turning this into an opus, it’s a waste of time to spend right now communicating better with students when the AMS is still terrible at communicating its decisions and processes internally. The AMS isn’t undermined when the average student says it sucks. It’s not even undermined when somebody fails to intervene and tell him its wrong. It’s undermined when it’s an AMS councillor that’s saying it because they feel they’re nothing more than a rubber stamp.
When I wake up from beer-induced nightmares, where do I turn? Tim and Gina’s blog crack.
1) I’ve already gone into a defense of slates here
2) The key votes for banning slates came from SPAN. They were of the opinion that the partisan tension was starting to infect most of our decisions, and they were right. That is the extent of the response that I’ll give to the ignorant post from Anon 11:47.
3) As for the student assembly, it didn’t get far, largely because there was not a strong appetite for it at Council and I had more pressing priorities. Something like the discussion created by VFM was probably a necessary precursor to having such an assembly. It was always intended as a way of reorienting the AMS to serving the ambitions of all UBC students and while I can’t say whether it would have made change more likely, it would have caused the AMS to be more representative. A lot of the “conservative” policies of the AMS are defended by saying things like, “If people listened to the argument, they’d agree.” Something like a student assembly would give us a ready and willing audience and if we couldn’t convince them, then we have no business advocating it for students. So it was intended to be a check on elitism. And if that ends up being a check on “conservatism” that’s fine, but it should also be recognized that there’s an equally good chance that it’ll enhance the voice of “conservatives.” At least the student style ones.
4) I think the ban has exposed a previously hidden problem, which is that the health of AMS democracy was very poor. The same number of people are going to the polls (10% higher last year over the year before) but now they only vote on the races that they feel they have the knowledge to vote on. So is it busted up? Debatable. Are elections determined by the insiders? Unquestionably, but that’s the way it was before. My campaigns had two phases: convince the elites I should win in the first half, convince the people to vote in the second. It rested on the correct assumption that asking your friend that’s involved in the AMS will be a better determinant of vote choice than a poster, and that will create a buzz. It’s very “The Tipping Point.”
I think that as long as the AMS is (mostly) governed by the executives of constituencies (AUS,SUS, EUS, CUS, etc.) it’s going to be conservative. Councillors are more interested in keeping meetings short, the time they spend on the AMS low, and their control high.
And at the risk of turning this into an opus, it’s a waste of time to spend right now communicating better with students when the AMS is still terrible at communicating its decisions and processes internally. The AMS isn’t undermined when the average student says it sucks. It’s not even undermined when somebody fails to intervene and tell him its wrong. It’s undermined when it’s an AMS councillor that’s saying it because they feel they’re nothing more than a rubber stamp.
Accidentally posted before I was done…
The end of that thought was that increasing internal communication will create greater trust within Council about proposed changes, and help to pass it in the future.
PS – Thanks Quinn.
Accidentally posted before I was done…
The end of that thought was that increasing internal communication will create greater trust within Council about proposed changes, and help to pass it in the future.
PS – Thanks Quinn.
I believe that over the years the face of campaigning has changed. With VFM, websites and especially facebook, much of campaigning this year is done online.
I don’t see this as a bad thing, rather I see it as the elections keeping up with the times.
In the old days you were harrassed by people around campus to accept leaflets that you were probably going to throw away. Today you see facebook flyers everytime you are on facebook! Not only is this better for the environment but I would argue that it is more, if not just as effective.
Debates are still going on, but rather than having to be physically present at every debate, you can read about them on the internet and then engage in an indepth discussion.
In my opinion, today people can be much more informed about thier decision than they were able to be a few years ago.
Cyber campaigning (combined with postering, debates and some human interaction) is the way to go.
I believe that over the years the face of campaigning has changed. With VFM, websites and especially facebook, much of campaigning this year is done online.
I don’t see this as a bad thing, rather I see it as the elections keeping up with the times.
In the old days you were harrassed by people around campus to accept leaflets that you were probably going to throw away. Today you see facebook flyers everytime you are on facebook! Not only is this better for the environment but I would argue that it is more, if not just as effective.
Debates are still going on, but rather than having to be physically present at every debate, you can read about them on the internet and then engage in an indepth discussion.
In my opinion, today people can be much more informed about thier decision than they were able to be a few years ago.
Cyber campaigning (combined with postering, debates and some human interaction) is the way to go.
There may be more than a little nostalgia present in this blog posting–someone’s getting close to graduating eh? Hopefully all students will remember the rather painful experiences slates brought us; is 11 months of annoyance, skullduggery, and back room dealing really worth a month of red vs. blue?
I state that largely because I wouldn’t go so far as to say that slate elections were more interesting–to those that matter. Certainly, they were great fun for the AMS crowd but voter turnouts tend to point to the student body’s dissenting opinion.
During last year’s election, it was noted by many parties at UBC (including the administration) that the level of civility and respect had markedly stepped up. Some of this was due to our fine candidates, some due to those handsome and hard working Election Committee members. At least a bit, however, was the palpable shift from “how to convince the sheep to vote for us instead of them” to “how can I stand out and get people to vote for me?”
As mundane as it sounds, it was enormously enjoyable to be able toresolve disputes and difficulties in a timely and meaningful fashion. (And, for that matter, to deal with candidates instead of slicker than Teflon campaign managers.) When the EC isn’t spending all of it’s time trying to sort fact from fiction or sorting through sheaves of complaints from both teams (or arguing with teams, or repeatedly catching teams cheating…) it’s actually able to properly adminster an election. Imagine!
In the end, it’s a little galling to see the blame for lacklustre campaigning being placed on the humble election system. The candidates (and electorate) determine whether the game is entertaining or not. If UBC is ever fortunate enough to see multiple class-A campaigns across the board, we’ll see those individuals get elected, and the bar will be raised. Until then, it’ll remain PeeWee League.
Wonderful blog, by and by. Makes for a great read from Edmonton!
There may be more than a little nostalgia present in this blog posting–someone’s getting close to graduating eh? Hopefully all students will remember the rather painful experiences slates brought us; is 11 months of annoyance, skullduggery, and back room dealing really worth a month of red vs. blue?
I state that largely because I wouldn’t go so far as to say that slate elections were more interesting–to those that matter. Certainly, they were great fun for the AMS crowd but voter turnouts tend to point to the student body’s dissenting opinion.
During last year’s election, it was noted by many parties at UBC (including the administration) that the level of civility and respect had markedly stepped up. Some of this was due to our fine candidates, some due to those handsome and hard working Election Committee members. At least a bit, however, was the palpable shift from “how to convince the sheep to vote for us instead of them” to “how can I stand out and get people to vote for me?”
As mundane as it sounds, it was enormously enjoyable to be able toresolve disputes and difficulties in a timely and meaningful fashion. (And, for that matter, to deal with candidates instead of slicker than Teflon campaign managers.) When the EC isn’t spending all of it’s time trying to sort fact from fiction or sorting through sheaves of complaints from both teams (or arguing with teams, or repeatedly catching teams cheating…) it’s actually able to properly adminster an election. Imagine!
In the end, it’s a little galling to see the blame for lacklustre campaigning being placed on the humble election system. The candidates (and electorate) determine whether the game is entertaining or not. If UBC is ever fortunate enough to see multiple class-A campaigns across the board, we’ll see those individuals get elected, and the bar will be raised. Until then, it’ll remain PeeWee League.
Wonderful blog, by and by. Makes for a great read from Edmonton!