The Insiders
-
Jan
22
Why don't students vote?
Posted by: Neal Yonson | January 22, 2009 | 8 Comments
I’ve heard this question asked countless times- why don’t students care about AMS elections and student politics? Why don’t they vote? How do we get them to vote? I can’t say I have a solution, but it seems to me that this has been a problem for quite some time, so campaign promises that eloquently explain how the candidate intends to increase student participation in the AMS sound a bit hollow. From my perspective, there are at least 3 factors contributing to student apathy- not just when it comes to AMS elections, but when it comes to student government and student societies in general.
1.) Lack of knowledge. I’ve been surprised how many of my friends I’ve talked to who have been surprised to learn that AMS elections are taking place. Some of those people then go and read up on the candidates or come to watch atrocious debates, but I think one of the primary factors in students not getting involved with organizations on campus is that they simply don’t know what’s out there. I don’t think this is particularly surprising, given that UBC is a big commuter campus. However, while advertising campaigns and outreach efforts might help rope in some of the students who might potentially care about the AMS (or SUS or the AUS/CUS etc.), they don’t always increase voter turnout or student involvement in politics because those who are interested will already voluntarily seek those organizations out, but also because lots of students simply don’t care, which brings me to my 2nd point.
2.) Lack of association. Students feel like student government doesn’t actually make that big of a difference. ‘But surely they know about the UPass and the efforts of AMS execs there? Or other events that student societies put on?’ you say. Kind of. But I would argue that students don’t know who is responsible for terms of negotiation, or that even if they do, the association between the concepts of “UPass” and “AMS” isn’t strong enough. Last year, shockingly few people realized that the referendum was held by the AMS- quite a few students I talked to thought it was the university itself that facilitated it. Similarly, while some students attending SUS events might know that their undergraduate society is hosting the event, some simply attend an event- not a SUS event, mind you, but, quite simply an event. Thus, students know which events are happening, but either don’t know who is hosting the event, or else quickly forget and then assert that “the doesn’t do anything.” Which isn’t always untrue, by the way. But it’s a perception that needs to be fought nonetheless.
3.) Lost trust/hope/faith in the system. There are other students who know perfectly well what’s going on, but refuse to get involved and to vote- and sometimes, I can’t blame them. While student politics are sometimes exciting, the ‘debates’ today were nothing if not disappointing. The problem is that students keep seeing the same types of people running for office- people who seem like “hacks”, for lack of a better word, or people who aren’t hacks, but who are blatantly rude or disrespectful to students who are trying to make a difference or who they may have to work with (I’m looking at you, Iggy. Or Ignacio, rather, as I fear the nickname might spoil the positive associations I currently have with that nickname and the current Leader of the Opposition, who has some admirable qualities that don’t involve insulting others; or for the hockey fans out there, Jerome Iginla), or who seem like hacks. Students also feel like the people running for office aren’t actually addressing student needs, but rather promoting their own personal agendas/political careers. I feel that an effective leader must have the trust of their constituency, and I think that’s simply not the case. Furthermore, there is such a lack of continuity between leaders that it becomes difficult to believe that anything can really be accomplished by any one leader in a given year. As a result, the impetus and incentive to vote, and the belief that one’s vote will actually make a difference, is in essence quashed. When candidates make empty promises (please, I beg you, stop talking about lowering tuition and be realistic!), students clue in, and oddly enough, it doesn’t hurt the candidate so much as it hurts the entire system. It is the entire system that loses the trust of its constituency. There have been interesting psychological studies on the matter that I won’t go into, but I think this is a major reason for students not voting- and I can’t blame them.
I’m not saying that we need an Obama to fix our system (as aMAZing as that would be). Rather, I’m saying that candidates need to be realistic, to realize how they are coming off to students, and to address students’ concerns beyond making empty promises. I think that greater transparency on the AMS’s behalf would start to address these concerns. The problem is that when even AMS candidates don’t know that AMS meetings can be attended by anyone, without invitation, how are students who aren’t interested in the system supposed to be informed about how the AMS operates (or at least how your portfolio operates)? And how are they supposed to trust a candidate who doesn’t have such basic knowledge to represent them? The problem is that candidates simply don’t present themselves well quite often. Joke candidates, while hilarious, should serve to raise important issues instead of making the entire business of elections seem like a joke by offering no substance. Don’t get me wrong- I love joke candidates- but only when they actually raise good points that serious candidates must then address. Serious candidates, on the other hand, shouldn’t be insulting, and nor should they bring in their personal cheerleaders to debates to ask rehearsed questions. And provincial politicking shouldn’t come into the picture. Perhaps if candidates were a bit more respectful of each other, they could finally get some (much deserved, at times) respect from the average student, and increase student involvement in the system. Until then, all we can do is lament about the state of apathy prevalent in our student body.
Comments
8 Comments so far
“The problem is that students keep seeing the same types of people running for office- people who seem like “hacks.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself!
VOTE PAUL KORCZYK
http://www.voteforpaul.ca
To address 1, remove draconian elections rules that discourage creative promotions. The elections code is riddled with regulation from slate-era AMS. Promotions machines no longer exist, so we should allow creativity again. Why are we still charging for emails?
To address 2, marketing and web presence. Too often the AMS gets results, and doesn’t capitalize on it. Where are the AMS logos on all the buildings students built on campus? Where is the giant banner, pointing to the aquatic centre, that says “THIS SHIT IS NOW FREE. THANK US PLSKTHX”.
The society also exists in the mid/late-90’s. The IT and communications departments need an overhaul and partial merger to realize and capitalize on how the society’s membership gets its information today.
To address 3, people need to grow up and stop yelling blue murder every time someone states their beliefs. This is a university, and open debate is to be respected, not yelled “shame” at. Read up about group think, everyone. It’s dangerous.
Also, most importantly, the AMS has never dedicated much time to seeing where the engagement problem is.
I would say this is the purpose of the communications department, but it is tied up with administrative miscellanea. AHRERC had a chance to issue studies, but no avail.
To throw in my two cents, I’ve discovered that Queen’s somehow manages to get on the order of 40% turnout to some of their ams elections. Sure, some of it comes from having to only make one major choice (hmm, green team or blue team?) but I think it can be largely chalked up to:
1) Queen’s being a small, close knit campus with most of the students living on, or close to the university. UBC is largely full of commuters, who don’t necessarily feel a connection to student government.
2) Bribery. They give out free caffeinated beverages if you vote.
3) Candidates can actually promote themselves properly. (What Alex said) The slates have parked booths next to the entrances of the major dining halls and in the Student Union. It’s as annoying as hell, but I know who’s running.
The AMS can’t change (1), but (2) and (3) are doable.
Also, on a side note, this blog doesn’t feel all that…insiderish anymore. No offense Maria. (hacks are bred, not born)
Sorry, Eoin, I’m not a hack. Somehow, though, I have a feeling that it’s a problem, which is in and of itself a problem.
Of course, you could also replace the word “students” with “Canadians” in this article…
The problem isn’t the system. the issue is that students just don’t care. It’s a societal thing, really. It’s not like the average joe on the street actually cares about federal/local/provincial politics. hence the less than 1/3 of voters in the CoV who bothered to turn out for the council elections.
The AMS would be wise to stop trying to engage people that simply put just want to get credentialed at UBC (or most other universities) and go on to compete in the labour market like everyone else. After all, they’re really not the kind of people that you want to get involved.
There is too much to care about in life; most people don’t have the time for the AMS – or at least its petty internal squabbling.
The overwhelming majority of non-voters will decide the student “government” that they want…by failing to acknowledge that it exists beyond a lunchtime food outlet.
the political process at UBC is hidden from the majority of students and kept within the reach of those who have branded and bred themselves within the system for different reasons. Some understand how the AMS works and that it can bring and has brought benefits to students whether they want to be involved or not. Students are dealing on a daily basis with the constrictions of an industrial mode of education that forces them to sit through 400 people classes and be subjected to 40% failing rates on first-year core courses. They are hoping to get out of here in one piece and get a job. If you look closely at the discourse of the candidates at the debates, you should see that there are people who know what they are saying, and unfortunately they are coming from right within the high ranks of AMS, but they have devoted a lot of time to student issues, and, for the most part, not just to their personal gain. Unfortunately, the BoG last year managed to tame the students into bare-bone ineffectiveness, and the shocking support to the bus loop, with several stumbles regarding the SUB Renewal project and the direction of development on campus. The BoG became the place to wear a suit and conform, shake hands and agree with everything, with a slight simplistic flare of subsumed critical thinking… without the brain power of a Peets to show how flawed the bus-loop project is, we were represented only by members of the AMS exec (Tristan, Mike and Blake) who tried to do something to make this campus more student-centered and have kept the SUB project away from the reach of the UBC Properties Trust Inc. By the way our students have acted on the BoG this past year, we should not be surprised if they would prefer to transfer the entire SUB renewal project and the design of the Farm and of Trek Park (no-car zone) in the heart (and soul) of campus to Campus and Community Planning.
I think that the lack of information circulating regarding these elections are shocking, alarming, but a consequence of the way things have been running for the past few years that I have been around. SUB Renewal was a huge campaign that ended up passing the project through a referendum, not a small promotional feat. So we know the AMS has the power to promote things, why it hasn’t done a half-decent job regarding the elections this year may be explained by some lack of initiative. Wouldn’t it be easier to get re-elected for a position if there was less competition? After all, the executive positions do come with decent salaries and pompous sounding-resume-filling titles and committees, and also come with the official recognition by the university administration at least, that the individual is an ‘official’ who represents students legitimately. If disengagement is such a fact that characterizes the status quo on this campus, and if students were all equally smart and able to represent each other, we should be better served with a ‘lottery’ election model, where students are picked randomly to become executives from a pool of potential candidates. It would not work because there are engaged students who actually care for the problems that we face collectively: they do not only include this year’s buzzwords, like saving the UBC Farm from irresponsible development, tuition increases and huge classes, lack of student housing and childcare, water fountains, but the increased domination of a corporate-industry-and-market-centered model of education.
Eddie, my less-than-furry friend who makes silly generalizations, you can’t expect students to care about things they don’t know about.
The AMS could be doing a much better job to let people know they exist. I tend to keep my furry ears open, but I didn’t know the first debate was happening until I walked by it. Hell, no one even emailed the Debate Society about the debate.
Before the Gallery Debate, I asked the random people who were there eating lunch if they were there for the debate. None of them knew it was happening, and maybe only a quarter of them knew the election was happening.
Take VFM for instance. Good idea. Great way to get information out to campus. Except there’s no promotion. Sure, there are a few posters, but those just reference the contest. The AMS site doesn’t link to any VFMs. If I want people to read my blog, I have to do all the legwork myself. A bit of help would be nice.
Voter apathy is part of the problem, but I think the AMS should reevaluate the way it promotes itself. It is always talked about but I haven’t seen any real action.
-cc