The Insiders
-
Posts by Neal Yonson:
Feb
4
I’ve been a little bit fed up with the most recent scandal, now dubbed “Cookie-gate”, so this is a brief note to thank all the candidates for running- we recognize the work you put into it, and appreciate that you’re willing to face up to the scrutiny that accompanies running for office.
Most of the average students I’ve talked to are impressed by your willingness to put yourself out there. In previous campaigns, and in this one, we have seen people make fun of others, to slander them, to spread false rumours and reports. I’m continually impressed by candidates who are willing to put themselves under the scrutiny of bloggers and others who are willing to critique, sometimes unkindly, the candidates. I’m impressed that people are willing to have others launch personal attacks against them, and who still put themselves out there because they want to make a difference. I personally don’t believe that campaigns should become personal- I feel like it’s enough that candidates have to be educated about issues, put together platforms, defend them, etc.. Attacking people who have decided to try their hand at student politics and potentially improve something on campus only sends the message to other UBC students to not get involved, thus perpetuating the problem of the lack of student involvement in the AMS. We ask ourselves why students don’t care, why they don’t take interest and don’t vote- and perhaps it is because most want to avoid the drama of student politics. So I think it’s really important to recognize the candidates who do come out of nowhere, the candidates who aren’t political hacks and don’t know what they might be facing during an election campaign.
I’ve talked to a lot of students during this election. Many ask me why the campaigns are so mean-spirited, or tell me they don’t want to get involved precisely for this reason. I’ve also talked to some of the candidates, all of whom have been really nice (and yes, this could be just because they’re running, but I’ve heard the same from people who have known them for longer than I have). I think a lot of people don’t realize that things said during this election campaign aren’t just lost forever once the campaign is over. As someone right pointed out, things said in cyberspace tend to stay there, so a falsehood could potentially hurt someone in their career rather than just in an election. So I think that treating all candidates with a bit of respect would serve everyone well- not just the candidates themselves, but students at large, and the AMS. People tend to stay away from things that are unpleasant- I don’t think this is a big revelation. So perhaps making student politics more pleasant would go a long way in encouraging students to get involved with the AMS.
So candidates- thank you. I realize it’s not easy, I appreciate that people are willing to make the effort, and I admire your ability to stand up for yourselves.
Feb
3
The UBC Student Media blog is reporting that there were people going around Place Vanier last night distributing cookies, carrying a laptop, and asking people to vote for a particular candidate for VP Academic. This is the first I’ve heard of the matter, and while plausible, I would like to hear more confirmations of the occurrence. It would seem to be a rather silly thing to do, seeing as it’s in direct violation of campaign rules, meaning that the candidate would have much more to lose than to gain, particularly when that candidate’s chances are pretty good as it is. So what are the possibilities?
1.) This actually happened, and it was intentional. In this case, we could probably expect the EA to not accept the results of the election for this particular race, and to hold another election for the position.
2.) This happened, and someone not involved with the campaign was going around doing this. In the past (and not even in the AMS), candidates have been punished for rules that have been broken by others. I know this is a possibility in SUS, so I would presume that the same can go for the AMS.
3.) This incident didn’t actually occur, or it may be possible that people were simply trying to get others to vote, or whatnot- I’m sure there are lots of reasonable explanations.
4.) The incident didn’t occur and people are attempting to frame a candidate in a bad light. This would be pretty bad form, and would only serve to make students dislike the AMS and further be discouraged from voting.
I’d definitely like to hear from others on the matter. So far the EA hasn’t commented on the incident, although I would presume that it would be under investigation. I would ask some serious questions in general about this campaign rule, however. Candidates aren’t supposed to pressure others into voting for them, but I’d ask what constitutes pressure. Yes, people can always say no, but lots of types of campaigning can constitute “pressure”. It’s not uncommon to see candidates approach people with laptops, for instance, and give them flyers with voting information, and to ask for their support. Candidates will often just go up to people and ask for their vote. They may get their friends to do the same. I’m not sure how convinced I am by the notion that in this situation, people would feel more pressured to vote for a candidate than in some of the other allowed scenarios. I’m not in support of candidates going up to people with laptops and asking for their vote right then and there simply because I see it as bad form and a sort of desperate tactic- I personally wouldn’t feel pressure. But then I’m not most people, so I can see how the argument would apply.
The other question, though, is what happens if the candidate wasn’t involved in planning this and didn’t know about it? It’s perfectly plausible that someone wanted to help them out, and didn’t know the election rules. Candidates can’t be held fully responsible for the actions of their friends/supporters, and even if they say something, you can’t necessarily stop people from doing what they choose. If this was the case, then would it be fair to punish the candidate or to hold another election?
We’ll see how this develops. Please comment if you witnessed the event taking place.
Feb
3
A voting reminder
Comments Off on A voting reminder
A reminder that online voting on the AMS website closes today at midnight. If you have not yet voted, there will be paper ballot voting on February 4th (Wednesday)- just walk by the SUB! According to the RBT, only just over 8% of the UBC students eligible to vote have done so, so get your friends out there to cast their ballot!
Thank you for reading, we hope to get your support! There hasn’t been much going on that’s worthy of reporting otherwise. I see posters up everywhere. Some of them are creatively stapled to avoid posters of other candidates. Some of them are colourful and stylized, others have interesting crop jobs. Some fail to let voters understand that voting is no longer a tick mark, but is rather a system of choosing your candidate preference. But I can’t really offer more analysis than that at the moment.
Type the rest of your post here.
Feb
3
UBC Engineering prank gets a failing grade
Comments Off on UBC Engineering prank gets a failing grade
details are sketchy, but there are multiple reports that five Engineering students were arrested early this morning after their attempt to hang the shell of a VW Beetle off the Second Narrows bridge. More news is available from CTV and The Ubyssey.
Feb
1
Story Time- An Adventure with Poll Answers
Comments Off on Story Time- An Adventure with Poll Answers
I’ve noticed a funny thing about polls. If you arrange them such that they seem really random, you can still come up with an interesting story based on readers’ opinions. This one is pretty short, and fairly straightforward, but I think works out alright, if you’re not too strict with timelines and such.
Once upon a time, the AMS decided to hold an election. Only this time, it would be a very special, novel sort of election, where candidates would be elected on their dancing skills and creativity. Some of the candidates first went to Cold Fusion to warm up their dancing skills. There, Tim Chu was seen breaking it down, while Mike Duncan raised the roof with his boa, wig, and Kanye-West like blue glasses that were so indicative of his dedication to Science. Johannes also showed up, showing everyone up with his fashion know-how. And Kommander Keg was also on the scene, lurking. They then left for the weekend, knowing that Monday they would be back on the campaign trail.
Monday rolled around, and the candidates all gathered for the last show-down. Each had to dance to a song selected by members of the audience. The VP External candidates decided to do a war dance, which they performed in a pool full of green jello. It went over well, but they were sadly overshadowed by Michael Duncan’s pole dancing to “I can’t get no satisfaction”. The audience was eager to cast their votes, but found themselves slightly confused in the new system, although most people seemed to like it. You see, votes needed to be cast by none other than carrier pigeon. Due to the Vancouver pigeon shortage, however, very few could vote, as there was a pigeon shortage in Vancouver. Luckily, votes could also be cast online, which got a few more people out. However, most students couldn’t quite figure out what relevance dance had to the elections, and most simply walked by, paying no attention to the contestants, while dancing fans stood around and blogged about their performances.
Jan
31
While I’ve been busy blogging about most of the ongoing races, I sort of let it slip from my memory that there aren’t any people running for Senate this year. It turns out that only 2 people submitted nomination forms, and as a result they automatically get seats. Currently, the available seats are being offered to this year’s Senators. I’m quite frankly astonished by this practice- rather than opening up nominations again, they have decided to simply offer the seats to people who did not apply, and who could take the seats without actually going through an election. I’m sure there’s some sort of term for this practice, but I can’t quite remember what it is right now.
[ hat tip to, and more analysis from The RBT]
Jan
30
I’ve got photos from Jello Wrestling here, and will have more from the last debates up later today as well as commentary on both events.
Before that, though, I should get some sleep.
Jan
30
Here’s a summary of the endorsements from all the different blogs!
UBC Insiders
Maria
President – 1) Blake Frederick, 2) Alex Monegro, 3) Paul Korczyk
VP Academic and University Affairs – 1) Johannes Rebane
VP Administration – 1) Kommander Keg (yes, even I’m surprised by this one) 2) Tristan Markle
VP External – 1) Tim Chu 2) Ignacio Rodriguez
VP Finance – 1) Tom Dvorak, 2) Ale Coates
Board of Governors – Michael Duncan and Andrew Carne
UBC Spectator
Kristian Arciaga
President – Alex Monegro
VP Academic and University Affairs – Johannes Rebane
VP Administration – Crystal Hon
VP External – Tim Chu
VP Finance – Tom Dvorak
Board of Governors – Bijan Ahmadian and Michael Duncan
Saša Pudar
President – 1) Blake Frederick, 2) Alex Monegro
VP Academic and University Affairs – Sonia Purewal
VP Administration – Kommander Keg, followed by Tristan Markle
VP External – Iggy Rodriguez
VP Finance – Tom Dvorak
Board of Governors – Bijan Ahmadian and Michael Duncan
Justin Yang
President – 1) Blake Frederick, 2) Alex Monegro, 3) Paul Korczyk
VP Academic and University Affairs – 1) Sonia Purewal, 2) Johannes Rebane, 3) Jeremy Wood, 4) David Nogas
VP Administration – 1) Crystal Hon, 2) Tristan Markle
VP External – TBA
VP Finance – 1) Tom Dvorak, 2) Ale Coates
Board of Governors – Michael Duncan and Andrew Carne
Stephen McCarthy (a.k.a. Serious Steve)
President – 1) Blake Frederick, 2) Alex Monegro, 3) Paul Korczyk
VP Academic and University Affairs – 1) Johannes, 2) Sonia, 3) Jeremy, 4)David
Gossip Guy (kind of endorsements in the form of photoshopped heads)
President – not yet up
VP Academic and University Affairs – Johannes Rebane
VP Administration – Crystal Hon
VP External – Tim Chu
VP Finance – Tom Dvorak
Board of Governors – Michael Duncan and Bijan
Radical Beer Tribune
President – 1) Alex Monegro, 2) Blake Frederick, 3) Paul Korczyk
VP Academic and University Affairs – 1) Johannes Rebane, 2) Sonia Purewal, 3) David Nogas, 4) Jeremy Wood
VP Administration – 1) Kommander Keg, 2) Tristan Markle, 3)Crystal Hon, 4) Water Fountain
VP External – 1) Iggy Rodriguez, 2) Tim Chu
VP Finance – 1) Tom Dvorak, 2) Ale Coates
Board of Governors – Michael Duncan and Andrew Carne
Fair Vote UBC
President – 1) Blake Frederick, 2) Paul Korczyk, 3) Alex Monegro
VP External – 1) Tim Chu, 2) Iggy Rodriguez, 3) Fire, 4) King’s Head
Will update with new endorsements as they come in.
Jan
29
“I hate democracy.”
– Sarina Rehal, AMS Elections Administrator 2008/09
Jan
29
Here are my endorsements for the election. I’m trying to have be brief in my explanations. I do have a qualm with this election- namely, there are no candidates that really stand out, or that are particularly wonderful. So overall I find these elections sort of disappointing, but I do feel like there could be a really good exec next year. If only we could combine candidates into a supercandidate…
President
My first choice is Blake Frederick, my second Alex Monegro, and my third Paul Korczyk. I feel like Blake has a stronger platform that covers more issues and lays out concrete ways in which to address them. He also has more experience in the AMS than do either of the other candidates, which means that he’ll know how to work within the constraints of the AMS and won’t have to spend as much time learning the ropes. Alex is my next choice. His platform isn’t quite as in-depth, but I think he has a fair understanding of some issues.
VP Academic and University Affairs Candidates
My endorsement for this one is Johannes. While none of the candidates really stand out for me in this election, I feel like he has the best grasp of the issues and seems to be the best for the job. His platform addresses things like first year education, and lays out ways in which tutorials and labs can be improved, partially by addressing TA teaching reforms. Other candidates do have decent platforms as well, but has particular weaknesses. Jeremy withdrew and re-entered the competition, which makes me doubt his motivation to really do a good job, although I do like his platform and dedication to his cause. Sonia has a good platform, but doesn’t work well on a team as was evidenced last year in SUS, and I’m not convinced that she’d really push the points of her platform through (plus, there are very good reasons for why we shouldn’t allow people to retake courses they do poorly in, among them things like space limitations- the university shouldn’t pander to people who are trying to get into med school, and chances are that students will do better the second time around simply based on regression towards the mean). She’s enthusiastic, but doesn’t know how things work, and I feel her platform points are generally unattainable. It sounds nice on paper, though. David Nogas also has good ideas, but I’m not sure how effective he would be in implementing them. So I feel that Johannes has the greatest number of strengths, despite his lack of experience.
VP External
I don’t particularly like either of these candidates- I’m sure they’re great people, but I don’t think either of them would be particularly great. That said, I’m voting for Tim Chu. I feel that equity is important, I feel he has more experience, and I feel that he would be better at negotating, partly because he has more tact and is less abrasive, unlike Iggy, who insulted people he would work with, and who I don’t feel would be a good team player as a result. He also doesn’t seem to care much for equity, which is problematic if he has the one to work on it. Kudos to Tim’s team for running a good campaign, as well. I do wish he’d focus on more things than equity and lowering tuition (which I’m pretty sure won’t happen). But I feel that he has the ability to learn quickly and do a good job.
VP Administration
My pick is, surprisingly, Kommander Keg. He’s said some smart things in this election. Tristan comes in second- he has the most experience, but I feel that he doesn’t connect with students. As a SUS AMS rep, he never showed up to a single meeting, for instance, and I feel that that sort of thing reflects poorly. And I’m not sure how much I trust Knollies. Crystal lacks experience, and I feel doesn’t have as good of an understanding of issues as Tristan.
VP Finance
I don’t feel like either candidate is particularly stronger than the other. Ale has more experience, Tom seems to have a better understanding of issues. Ale has little business experience and wants to focus on things like building a new used bookstore, while Tom wants to focus more on supporting businesses and earning revenue that way. I feel he has a better grasp of what the position entails. I don’t feel particularly strongly, but I feel he has just a slight edge.
Board of Governors
My picks are Andrew Carne and Michael Duncan. Andrew really knows the issues, and Mike would be a good advocate for students. Both have experience with the AMS and know how the system works, which is good. I’m impressed by Andrew’s attending BoG meetings just for interest- it shows that it’s something he’s explored, taken interest in, and that he’s willing to take initiative to find out what things are about before doing them. Bijan I feel shot himself in the foot with the Farm statement, and I don’t really trust him to represent student interests as a result. In fact, I don’t trust him at all to represent students, given his most recent shenanigans. Blake would be fine, but I don’t feel he’s as good as the other candidates. The same goes for Tristan.
I’m going to look into the student legal fund society candidates, but that’s it for now!
