NO VOTE NO VOICE – my thoughts on the Totem debate

I have to admit that I haven’t given the AMS elections as much as attention as I should have. But that definitely does not mean that I think they are not important – in fact, this year has again proven how important it is for us to hold our elected representatives accountable for how they behave and the decisions they make.

Even if I don’t have time to attend all the election events, I have read through the Ubyssey’s election supplement and some blogs, like UBC Insiders. Also, I went to Totem debates and plan to go to the other debates (Monday in Vanier or the CSI at 5, Tuesday in the SUB at 12).

So what do I think? — Instead of telling you each candidate’s platform I’ll just tell you how many ticks I gave and why. 1 tick = 1 idea/thing that I like about them.


Justin: 2 ticks – for knowing what he’s talking about. He obviously won’t waste any time learning how things work as he already seems very confident.

Spencer: 2 ticks – for being honest about not having the answer to something and asking the audience. All our representatives have to trust that their best bet is to talk to students.

AJ: 1 tick – for including international students in his platform.

Imran: 2 ticks – for mentioning the importance of reaching out to high schools to discuss drop-out rates.


Ryan: 1 tick – for mentioning that we need to look seriously at how we understand the concept of ‘education.’

VP External

Rory: 2 ticks – for supporting the building of relationships with other BC student unions and for being clear on the fact that if the ¬†referendum passes students should actively demand more of their elected representatives. However, I felt very uncomfortable with his ‘suits suck’ campaigning. I myself am not a big fan of suits, but I believe that it is in no way OK to engage in the negative assigning of stereotypes to people who decide to wear suits. Also, I found it very disrespectful when he swore in the middle of the debate.

Mitch: 2 ticks – for having the experience and knowing very useful information. I’m not a fan of him giving the same answer to all the questions: ‘I have done the research…’ ‘My research shows…’

Katherine: 2 ticks – for including graduate and international students in her platform and for knowing how the AMS works. She seemed very prepared but not as approachable as the other two candidates.


Omar: 1.5 ticks¬†– for having ‘poor and busy’ students as his top priority. He does seem very hard-headed and willing to do anything to get his way.

Jeremy: 3 ticks – for having already done a good job in the AMS executive, for wanting to work on projects that are tangible and not his personal agenda.

Michael: 2 ticks – for being against student apathy. However, he does seem very opportunistic…

Jeremichael: A LOT of ticks – normally I’m not amused by joke candidates. However, his statement really makes you think about how easy it is for candidates to say whatever students what to hear : “I have the expertise.. leadership… pro-active… promise.”

Before you vote take a moment to think of who just wants this position on their resume (regardless of how well spoken they may be) and who shows real passion and dedication to representing students.

About Valentina

I'm from a small and beautiful town next to a big and amazing lake in Guatemala.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to NO VOTE NO VOICE – my thoughts on the Totem debate

  1. Miriam says:

    I’m not sure if Rory’s shirt has anything to do with this, but “Suits suck” is an expression within hockey culture.
    What happens is that some people who get great seats at Canucks games aren’t actually into the hockey–they just go for the socializing. They’re called Suits. The “hardcore” fans in the cheap seats don’t wear the suits, but hockey jerseys.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *