I’ve had a busy couple days with Ubyssey, work, school, and photoshoots, so I haven’t had much of a chance to post photos. Anyway, these are from Thursday’s debates.
The elections start tomorrow: be sure to get the word out and encourage your friends to get informed and get their vote on!
Mike Kushnir is now running seriously. Also, his glasses aren’t real. Mike is torn on a new SUB, because it means that an entire cohort of students will have to go without a SUB, but the current one is clearly inadequate.

Tristan Markle and the Technicolor Pants. Tristan’s got bold plans for a Zero-Energy SUB.

Aaron Palm, of the Devil’s Advocate, is running as a joke candidate. His shtick was to answer all questions by quoting the bible. Also, he wore an awesome suit.

Honestly, I was expecting the President of UBC Debate to be a stronger speaker. Steve definitely hemmed his way through a few questions but when he hit his stride was able to detail a fairly club-focused platform.

I’m not entirely sure why Steph Ryan is running; every answer was prefaced with “DON’T VOTE FOR ME.” and it seemed more like a chance for her to use the debates as a soapbox for personal views than anything else.
PS: slates only bring diversity if you consider tokenism to be diversity.

Yian would stop talking, literally in the middle of a word, whenever I pointed a camera at him. The first time, I thought it was funny; the fourth time, I was (and am) firmly of the mind that this man should not be the VP Admin. Also, I fully admit that I pulled the worst photo of the bunch to include in this post.

For some reason, I don’t have a picture of Shawn at the podium. He quoted his SAC experience and also presented several concrete plans to revitalize the portfolio, enhance club relations and generally springboard off his time in SAC.

Mike Duncan caught me taking a photo of Alex and Lois, and decided to make a face in the background… so I made him the foreground.

the crowd, mid-debate. Note Andrew Forshner not dropping the ball.

Blake Frederick, current AVP Badass.

Nate Crompton asking a question of the candidates.

Riveting. Debate. Action.

Just a quick profile shot of the candidates.

Aaron Palm is not pleased

Kasha Chang moderated the debates. It’s a thankless job.

I sense a rivalry brewing.

Alex Lougheed, checking out his potential co-executives with SUS D.Finance Lois Chan.


7 Comments so far

  1. Anonymous on February 11, 2008 4:48 am

    Gerald, can you explain what you mean by tokenism?


  2. Gerald on February 11, 2008 5:16 am

    basically, it’s including someone in a slate (in this case) not on their own merits but because they’re members of a community or minority that allows the slate to pull in votes from a segment of the population.
    SFS was pretty bad for this: you could look at one of their 3×3 postersquares and figure out who was the token Engineer, Asian person, Residence community member, and commuter student. On the surface, it seems to present greater diversity, but by reducing candidates to one facet of their identity, tokenism (as seen in slates) doesn’t enhance access to the AMS. It’s one of a number of reason slates are flawed.

  3. Commodore Cuddles on February 11, 2008 7:28 am

    As Aaron Palm’s campaign manager, I do object to the Insider’s dismissal of his candidacy as a “joke.” Have you looked at the competition? Seriously? Aaron’s platform is solid. A floating SUB built off Wreck Beach is the only sustainable solution to the whole SUB renewal kurfuffle. (until the floating SUB is torpedoed by the Wreath Underground, anyway)
    For shame, UBC Insiders. I expect an apology on my desk by the morning.

  4. Gerald on February 11, 2008 7:34 am

    oh god it’s Rodrigo all over again.

    I will set you on fire, Commodore.
    Do not push me.

  5. Matthew Naylor on February 11, 2008 7:53 am

    I respectfully disagree Gerald. Slates do bring diversity, and even if they were only using tokenism to achieve this, its still happening. That said, slates eliminated a mechanism that allowed people from disparate groups to come together and share ideas that would create a more well grounded AMS exec.

    They also managed to create an institutional mechanism that seemed to counter the potential bias that has re-asserted itself since slates were done away.

    I really, to be honest, have yet to hear a truly meritorious argument for continuing the prohibition. When we look at the last days of slates, it becomes pretty clear why they were abolished.

    That reason wasn’t a very good one.

  6. Anonymous on February 11, 2008 3:48 pm

    What reason was that?

  7. Gerald on February 12, 2008 3:44 am

    yeah, Matt, do tell.
    Why were slates banned?

Name (required)

Email (required)


Speak your mind

Spam prevention powered by Akismet