Category: AMS Elections 2008

AMS Elections 2008 Media

How to vote in VFM – Interpolated Consensus,WTF?

Post author By Neal Yonson
Post date January 27, 2008
11 Comments on How to vote in VFM – Interpolated Consensus,WTF?

Voter Funded Media, the contest that accompanied the AMS elections for the second year this year, is an idea that’s meant to award media public funds by the will of the people, thus fostering better journalism, more informed voters, better elected leaders, and healthier democracies. The assumption is that media, as opposed to candidates or special interest groups, are able to engage larger audiences, since they are experts in communication. This, at UBC may or may not be the case, particularly considering the contest’s mismanagement this year, but in any event, voting for this “race” of sorts is on now on WebVote until the 31st. There’s an 8 thousand dollar prize pool that will be distributed among the various media according to votes. If you’ve enjoyed reading this blog, I encourage you to login and vote for us.

Before you do that though, you should find out about the voting system: “interpolated consensus”. It’s a tad complex, so just bear with me – and by the end, you’ll know how to best allocate your votes! Alors, when you log into WebVote, you’ll notice that for each media, you have the option of allocating to them $0, $500, $1000, $1500, or $2000. Lets do a simplified scenario: after everyone has voted, the votes are counted, and the median is determined. The median is a number which 50% of the numbers in a set are below, and 50% or the numbers in a set are above. It’s the 50th percentile. The median will be one of the five amounts of money. If this is done for each media, you have an amount of money that each should receive. This is the “consensus” part of interpolated consensus. Taking the median, as opposed to the average, as a basis for awarding prizes is meant to discourage strategic voting – that is, it should encourage the voter to vote for the amount they actually believe that the contestant should receive. With averages, people are encouraged to engage in strategic voting (ie. voting above or below their real opinion) in order to “pull up” or “pull down” the average. If you use the median, on the other hand, the actual number you choose has no bearing on the amount that the media is awarded. All that matters is whether it is above, or below the median. Your vote will pull the median closer to your vote, whichever direction (up or down) that may be. You don’t know. So if both 2000 and 1500 is above the 50th percentile of votes, they will both have the same effect on the outcome – by how much they are above the median doesn’t matter.

Now, let’s abandon our simplified scenario, and look at how it actually works. First, your five voting options represents a discontinuous set. That is, you’re only allowed to award media in $500 intervals. To make the set more continuous, each vote for 500 is interpreted as 1/5 th of a vote for each 100-dollar interval between 300 and 700. Similarly, each vote for 1000 is interpreted as 1/5 of a vote for each 100 dollar interval between 800 and 1200. this is the “interpolation” part of interpolated consensus. If you didn’t get that, just ignore it – it’s a way of making the set of numbers more continuous. Second, we have to scrap thinking about the median (the 50th percentile) that we’ve been imagining. This is because taking the median of each media’s votes and giving them that amount of money may not add up to the prize pool of 8000 dollars. In order for the system to actually allocate the prize pool, the percentile which will allocate exactly 8000 dollars is used – lets call this the pth percentile. This pthe percentile arbitrarily represents the “consensus” vote, and voting above or below it will change the prize for that media.

I have a few problems with this system. It seems to me that strategic voting is still possible: if you want to be sure that you’ll have an upwards effect on a contest, always vote 2000. If you want to be sure to have a downwards effect, vote 0, or don’t vote. If you want the media to get a specific amount, you should vote for that amount. The system will bring the pth percentile closer to the amount you chose, no matter if it’s an up or down effect. The other problem I have is with using the pth percentile to determine how much money to give to each contestant, instead of using the median, scaled to $8000. It seems to me that it’s quite likely to have a highly discontinuous set of votes with some media. This makes taking some percentile and awarding it highly arbitrary. It could jump from quite high to quite low as the result of a couple people that didn’t vote (ie, voted 0) – or vice versa. If you’re going to use a consensus system I think it makes much more sense to use a weighted median. I tend to think a voucher system with averages makes more sense to begin with, but that’s just me. Thoughts?

For a more detailed explanation and simulation, go to VoterMedia.org

AMS Elections 2008

Best of AMS Elections 2008

Post author By Neal Yonson
Post date January 26, 2008
20 Comments on Best of AMS Elections 2008

Hi everyone still reading the Insiders. This is Serious Steve from the Devil’s Advocate, bringing you the Best of the 2008 AMS Elections, as nominated by the VFM candidates and decided by me. (And before you ask, yes, yes I did hack the Insiders website. Because I’m that good. Watch my post stay up here too!)

Best Election Picture

Shawn from Eat Cake takes this category with a stunning rendition of Mistress Rennie. Unfortunate for Erin that she didn’t get the President position, since she won’t be able to get a job for a while.
Read more wonderful results behind the jump!

Honourable mentions:
Gerald from The Insiders and Peter from the Cavalier pick up honourary mentions in this category, for gratuitious pictures of my ass and “Che Allison, AMS President.” Watch for the revolution to arrive in your [University] neighbourhood soon.

Best Waste of a VFM Entry

Joey Coleman with Macleans on Campus! This was a clear-cut win. Joey isn’t at UBC, and didn’t cover the election at all! Talk about wasting some money. The silly thing is, Macleans is a brand name so silly voters may give him money. Thanks to the Radical Beer Tribune (also strangely lacking in coverage) for the nomination.

Honourable mentions: The 4 “we’re in it for the money” 32, and the Underground (nominated by themselves, appropriately enough).

Best Dressed Candidate

Fire Hydrant Peets! This was a bit closer contest, but we felt that the elegant white and red lines of Fire’s costume (not to mention the racing stripes) really carried the day. Thanks Peter at the Cavalier for the nomination.

Honourable mention: Irish Courage, for “being one bad-ass motherfucking leprechaun”, and “Scary” Mike “the Rabbi” Kushnir.

Also check out Maayan’s fashion report soon to come at the Devil’s Advocate – reporting the fashion faux pas of candidates and Speakers alike.

Best Word of the Campaign

bloggify, v. The act of using all your skills in magic to transfigure some form of content to a “blog” format. (definition from Eat Cake)

I really have to thank Rodrigo for this one. (And as a side note, Rodrigo really rocked the Jam Space that was the Gallery post-election! Wow!)

Honourable mention: Flyerfuck (a close runner up particularly near my heart), Trek Park, “meaningful consultation”

Best Poster

Flyerfuck!!! I’m going to give Lougheed’s so-called “Soft Porn” poster a mention for inspiration, but you’ll have to excuse my conflict of interest when I award myself best poster of the campaign. As Peter mentioned in his nomination: “Flyerfuck – ’nuff said.”

Honourable mentions: Scary Mike’s cartoon posters (See: Axis of Evil. Dude, the rhetoric was Axis of Boring, ok?), and Piovesan: Disendorsed by Aaron at the Devil’s Advocate.

Worst nomination in this category: The Underground with the Cloverfield poster. Sure, it may be a poster, but did they run in the elections? Nooooo. And did you pay any attention to the elections at all? ….

Best Embarrasing Moment

“The fear-stricken eyes in the ranks of the senate candidates when they were asked to display personality” — Maayan from the Insiders, in her nomination. Indeed, folks, as I mentioned in this post, most of them failed to show any real personality at all.

Honourable mentions: Freeman being shamed by the audience for his comment on international students, and Mike Duncan in Debate numero uno.

and finally,

Best Dall-Dropping

The man himself: Brendan Piovesan

“I can has election?”

Honourable mentions: None.

****

Well, thanks for reading (both here and at the Devil’s Advocate). We’ll be covering the VP Admin race so check back for more coverage. Congrats to all the winning candidates for running our student society next year, and to all the losing ones to have time to actually go to school.

Cheers!

AMS Elections 2008 Media

Elections Results: photos and mockery.

Post author By Neal Yonson
Post date January 25, 2008
5 Comments on Elections Results: photos and mockery.

Last night, I took photos. This morning, I mock people. You know you like it.

Aaron from UBC Devils, undoubtedly plotting.

Austin from UBC Devils. I’m a firm believer in keeping one’s friends close and their enemies closer.

Andrew Forshner, of whom I cannot take a photo without it looking like he’s singing.

Stef Ratjen, heading out of the Gallery for some air.

We’ve got all sides of the competition covered…

…especially when it comes to UBC Devil’s head dude Stephen McCarthy.

It was Open Mic night in the Gallery, and this fine gentleman serenaded the throng of politicians for a while. Sadly, I didn’t catch his name.

Erin Rennie ponders her picks for the elections pool.

Gina, another Open Mic Night entertainer.

Erin Rennie wanted the Presidential race to be a series of staring contests, as she is totally schooling Matt Naylor.

Angelina from the Devil’s Advocate, and her paper airplane.

It’s an Exec Sandwich!

I’m not sure EA Brendan Piovesan can exactly be called the most popular man… but everyone did want to hear the results.

Team Flyerfuck awaits results.

Azim Wazeer raises the roof upon hearing he made it.

VP Finance-elect Chris Diplock was all smiles and hugs.

Unsurprisingly, Team Flyerfuck went straight for the makeouts upon finding out Alex had won.

Erin Rennie, relieved to have gotten her 10% and also to have not won.

President-elect Mike Duncan and VP Admin Sarah Naiman.

Maybe there are pink UBC cowboy hats in our future.

VP Students Brian Sullivan was also in attendance.

Tyler “Che” Allison relates the story of voting at every poll booth, his concerns about the way paper ballots were handled, and details the coming revolution for Eric Szeto (off camera, holding mic)

Congratulations to the newly elected student representatives, and condolences to those that didn’t make it; there’s still plenty of opportunity to make your mark!

It was an interesting election, and voting isn’t over – be sure to vote for the UBC Insider in the Voter Funded Media Contest!

AMS Elections 2008

Results! (prefunctory)

Here are the results. That is, the results before the 3 to 5 student court challenges that should be comin forward in the next week or so due to voting irregularities. Note the Bottom-of-the-barrel voter turnout. This is worse than this year’s SUS elections, if memory serves. To quote the Devil’s advocate: “Brendan Piovesan. DISENDORSED.”

Senate
Philip Edgecumb 580 :(
Colin Simkus 615
Eileen Harder 631
Aidha Sheikh 766
Blake Frederick 779
Azim Wazeer 796
Alfie 832
Rob Mclean 932
Alex Lougheed 1028

BoG
Genevieve “Malt-Likkah” 210
Glen “fidler crab” Finlay 280
Cris Marincat 309
Rodrigo Ferrari Nunes 439
Andrew Carne 512
Tim Blair 889
Bijan Ahmadian 1398

VP External
1049 Freeman Poritz
1429 Stef Ratjen

VP Finance
406 Stash “irish courage” Bylicki
608 Andrew Forshner :(
864 Chris Diplock

VP Academic
559 Fire Hydrant Peets
619 Rob Mclean
695 Nathan Crompton
Alex Lougheed

President
125 Che Allison
354 Erin Rennie :(
426 Rodringo Ferrari Nunes
484 Matt Naylor
1475 Mike Duncan

Now excuse me while I get another beer.

[gerald’s 2am edit: Pictures are up on flickr, here. Commentary and post up tomorrow.]

AMS Elections 2008 Media News

Ineptitude? Carelessness? Cheating? Elections train is off the rails

Post author By Neal Yonson
Post date January 23, 2008
21 Comments on Ineptitude? Carelessness? Cheating? Elections train is off the rails

In a surprising announcement today, Elections Administrator Brendan Piovesan confirmed that the race for VP Administration, between incumbent Sarah Naiman, “Scary” Mike “the Rabbi” Kushnir, and Yian Messoloras, has been cancelled. The exact reasons are yet unclear, but they involve campaign rules transgressions on the part of one candidate. Apparently, Messoloras broke the rules when he asked people to vote on his laptop computer on the spot. The elections code specifies that candidates cannot pressure people into voting and they have to be at least 10 meters away from voting stations. All the votes that have been submitted on the electronic voting system, which closed yesterday, will be discarded. This may not in fact be allowed, according to AMS elections code, however.

Article 3, Section 7, states: “if serious offences have been committed by more than one candidate in an election, the Elections Committee may declare the results of that election invalid.”

Cancellation thus requires that there be serious offences committed by more than one candidate. As far as we know, here there’s only one. Also, there’s no power to “suspend” an election – only to declare the results invalid. This decision may find itself in Student Court.

Right now though, brand new nominations for the position apprently going to open, and the new race will take place in February. Questions about why the disqualification of the candidate in question, as opposed to the cancellation of the whole race, was the course of action chosen remain unclear. This development will doubtless bode ill for the VP admin race, which will probably have a lower profile and lower voter turnout due to the delay.

This incident is only one in a string of administrative and political gaffes that have marked this elections period. Other notable controversies include the bungled all-candidates’ meeting, too-short campaign period and late and absent updates on the AMS elections website (including updating candidates’ blurbs in a timely fashion). In addition, if you expect to find candidate profiles, media coverage, or posters near the paper ballot voting-booths tomorrow, you may be disappointed. Uninformed voters hoping to make an on-the-spot decision will find it hard to gather information at the voting booths, since Piovesan has confirmed that neither candidate blurbs, nor bulletin boards for posters will be provided at the voting stations. Candidates may independently bring their posters to the voting sites, but according to Piovesan, they will not be officially organized. “No way. I’m not gonna do that,” quoth he.

In the realm of the Voter Funded Media contest, things are not much better. Voting using the Interpolated Consensus counting system is impossible on Web Vote software, and even a simplified voting system has not been organized on the university-controlled program. Therefore, voting for the VFM contest has been delayed, only to take place after the elections are over. It remains unclear on what system this voting will take place. Speculation about the influence of this delay on VFM results abound: will late name-recognition entries that have done no coverage (like the Science and Arts undergraduate newspapers) end up benefiting at the expense of smaller unfunded independent media? We’ll see.

Of course, administration hasn’t been the only issue. Some candidates seem to have stopped showing up to debates. The BoG debate on Monday was notably missing two prominent candidates, and yesterday the VP External debate did not even take place due to the absence of one candidate. Of course, candidates should have the freedom to determine what the most effective campaigning strategies are, but in this elections it seems like unprofessionalism from the administrative side is feeding the same from the candidates to result in a week of exemplary irregularity.

The elections committee redeems itself somewhat by their funny loudspeaker announcements pulling people in to vote on the SUB’s North side, but whether that’s enough to salvage a voter turnout short of disastrous is suspect.

AMS Elections 2008 Development Government Issues

Issue of the Day: The Musqueam Issue

Post author By Neal Yonson
Post date January 23, 2008
25 Comments on Issue of the Day: The Musqueam Issue

Now for something a little more controversial. Somebody who I work fairly close with recently questioned my leftist politics. That’s fair – I feel quite comfortable in the bureaucracy of the AMS, and I feel quite comfortable trying to balance the 42 000 different opinions of AMS members, and I even support many CASA policies. But after reading Jesse Ferrara’s post on the Musqueam issue, I agreed that it was something that should get some more discussion in this year’s election. And frankly, at the most recent BoG debates, there are a few things that should be clarified.

More behind the jump…

A History of First Nations Oppression:

There is a certain camp of people, in which I identify, who might describe the history of First Nations people in BC like this:

There were no “signed” treaties in BC that handed the land over to the Crown – in fact, the conditions under which these other “treaties” were signed across Canada are sketchy at best. There was also no war that was won that legitimizes the Queen of England‘s right to let the Canadian government oversee this land. The only thing that did happen was that a lot of Europeans came to this land with racist, imperialist assumptions that the people who lived here were “backwards and uncivilized” and that was some sort of justification for why we could take it over.

Over the years, those racist assumptions permeated into the minds and hearts of almost every Canadian, excusing policies that forced children to leave their homes, renounce their Native identity and stop speaking their Native language. What followed were decades of white people actively destroying Native culture and history, and any of its power and meaning. Families fell apart, survivors of the Residential Schools were taught to hate themselves and histories were not just being lost, but violently rewritten. We built entire institutions that systematically destroyed Native culture and kept the First Nations people down through a reinforcing cycle of economic and social poverty.

Now, people think that we should just forget all that: “I didn’t take over their land, its not my fault.” Well, that’s nice. But I for one feel perfectly capable of taking responsibility for the incomprehensibly terrible things that my ancestors did, and I feel perfectly comfortable doing whatever it takes to rectify the situation, whatever it will take for First Nations communities to heal and rebuild.
Systemic oppression is about systems, structures and societies that are built on keeping certain people down, certain perspectives out, and certain power-structures in place. Accepting the First Nations issue as an oppression issue is about acknowledging the decades of violence that has been launched at Aboriginal communities.

Land Claims issues:

The basic principles to rectifying the relationship between Canada and the First Nations communities are outlined in the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP): recognition, respect, sharing and responsibility. We must recognize that the Aboriginal people are the original inhabitants of this land, and no matter how you want to look at it, that grants them certain rights, and we must recognize them as nations, on par with the nation of Canada. We must respect their tradition, their history, their culture and their wishes, the way they define themselves and the future that they define for themselves. We must share this land. And lastly, we must take responsibility for the years of violent oppression, it is our responsibility for the current relationship and state of affairs.

Understanding current First Nations issues, like current land claims, requires a deep appreciation for these basic tenants. Land claims in BC are about negotiating use of this land on equal terms, land which has never been negotiated fairly up until this time. It is not necessarily about “living off the land” – although most Indigenous cultures have a strong cultural tradition that is linked to particular land. To assume that all Native people want to return back to some sort of pre-Settler lifestyle is racist. Thus, if the Musqueam nation wants to build condos on the Golf Course – by all means, who are we to say what they should do? Land claims are about reconciliation of past injustices – and we need to respect the terms of reconciliation that they define.

The Musqueam Nation and UBC:

We have to recognize the First Nations people as legitimate nations, with legitimate governments. In this sense, why would the Musqueam nation negotiate with UBC? The Musqueam Nation negotiates with the nation of Canada. UBC just happens to be the governmental institution that sits on their land. The notion of putting a Musqueam leader on the Board of Governors is absurd because it is tokenistic. It doesn’t address the heart of the issue at all. It is a false gesture. Until UBC is willing to address Indigenous issues head on, with a serious commitment to change things and rectify things, then a BoG seat is entirely meaningless. A serious approach would question how we perpetuate racist and anti-indigenous assumptions in our institution. It would question how we, as an institution of higher learning that is representative of advances in human society, continue to oppress and colonize First Nations people.

UBC’s current approach is to increase access of First Nations people to the ‘incredible education of UBC’ – aka bringing more FN students into UBC. Education can be one of the greatest tools for empowerment and freedom. It also can be one of the greatest tools for domination and repression. Unless UBC’s educational experience is willing to take on this question, and change to be anti-oppressive, then again, this solution is tokenistic, and side-steps the real issues, and even perpetuates the colonial relationship. What would an empowering education look like for an Aboriginal student? Well, it would be an Aboriginal education, taught from an Aboriginal perspective by Aboriginal people. It would not be a Western interpretation of Aboriginal history. It would force white students to engage in that Aboriginal history from an Aboriginal perspective. It wouldn’t just be a pathetic attempt at being more “welcoming” and “supportive” of First Nations students. UBC’s approach doesn’t critically ask, how does the white institution of UBC needs to change in order to end the oppression of Aboriginal people within its doors, and in society as a whole.

The Issue as it relates to the AMS:

You may have read in a recent issue of the Ubyssey that the AMS failed a motion to support a negotiated settlement for the Musqueam Nation in the recent golf course issue. I think it was a very sad day, and a missed opportunity to publicly support the Musqueam nation. The AMS, like UBC, really has no role in “building relationships” with a nation – would any true representative of the United States come deal with the AMS? But there are things that the AMS can do. Firstly, the AMS can do a better job of publicly supporting the Musqueam nation in their struggle. The other thing the AMS can do is better represent its First Nations students – this would require more Aboriginal representation within the various facets of the AMS, better resources and services for FN students, outreach and relevance. Of course, its a bit of a Catch-22, because there aren’t many reasons currently for First Nations students to get involved in the AMS, which makes it difficult to build in those relevant resources and programs. For example, there should be an Aboriginal Student Centre in the Resource Groups. But again, until the AMS is willing to take a critical look at how we actively perpetuate an oppressive relationship, then we aren’t doing much better than UBC. The AMS will ha
ve to engage in the issue head-on, work with Aboriginal students to define what their needs are and how the AMS can support that, and then help Aboriginal students to make it happen.

AMS Elections 2008 Issues

Issue of the Day: Sustainability

Post author By Neal Yonson
Post date January 23, 2008
3 Comments on Issue of the Day: Sustainability

I like to think of myself as an environmentalist, and its definitely how I got my start in student politics – co-chairing the Student Environment Centre for two years. Those two years were spent feeling frustrated and overwhelmed – partly because of the generally poor organizational structure of the SEC (and other Resource Groups), and partly because I was too idealistic and didn’t know a thing about campus politics, the AMS, coalition-building, strategic planning, and well, activism.

I still feel like I don’t really have a handle on environmental issues at UBC. So, what is it all about? Is it just PR or are we making a difference? Is UBC really leading the way in sustainability? And where does the AMS fit in all of this…

Some answers to these rhetorical questions… behind the jump…

A History of Sustainability:

In 1997, the University passed its Sustainability policy, committing to creating a Sustainability Office and creating a strategy that would guide its sustainability efforts. In 1997, this was huge, and still something to be proud of – a lot of very organized student groups across the country are still fighting with their University’s to develop a recycling program, let alone a sustainability office. Then Director of Sustainability Frida Pagani along with Geoff Atkins (AVP Land & Building Services) and I’m sure others convinced UBC that they could save millions of dollars in energy costs by retrofitting buildings (making buildings on campus more energy-efficient), which could fund the sustainability office’s operations. UBC agreed, and there you have the lasting marriage between UBC and Sustainability.
But that was really all the sustainability office had to offer save for a few educational and administrative programs which have mostly been, in my opinion, ineffective. UBC also likes taking a lot of credit for the U-Pass, and the associated increase in transit ridership – all too often forgetting the role that the AMS played in securing that program for students.

Recently, a new Director was appointed to the Sustainability Office, Charlene Easton. She comes from the corporate sustainability sector, and brings a very different flavor, but I think one that is setting the Sustainability office in much bolder new directions. We’ll have to wait and see, she’s only been in the position for less than a year. But, Charlene is very interested in building partnerships with students, particularly the AMS. Some of the new initiatives: creating something comparable to LEED standards for the market housing being built in U-Town; creating a coalition of student groups on campus called the Climate Action Partnership, coming together to create a framework that will get UBC to climate neutrality (also known as carbon neutrality).

What’s the problem?

Well, technically you could say there isn’t one. UBC has an incredible compost and recycling program, we boast the amazing educational and food security efforts of the UBC Farm (although it took a lot of lobbying to get UBC to recognize its value, which isn’t quite done), and we get a lot of international recognition for our efforts. The reality is, we could be doing a LOT better, and the push should be coming from students. The problem, in my opinion, is with us, the students.

We should be producing reports on various environmental issues, we should be writing letters, lobbying and building coalitions. We should be planting gardens in the middle of main mall. We should be demanding that no more trees are cut down for market housing, that more green space is preserved, and that all buildings are LEED platinum.

It takes all the energy we can muster to put on the Student Environment Centre conference – this year it was great too… but it didn’t create any larger dialogue about what the next big things that should be happening in campus sustainability. When I was co-chair, I was an idealist who didn’t know a thing about the science behind anything I was talking about, and I thought that “awareness campaigns” had meaning. We tried to hold stuff swap events that mostly just highlight the incredible amounts of junk that people collect over the years. I definitely wasn’t knocking on administrator’s doors. I definitely wasn’t mobilizing students to do demonstrations, and I wasn’t putting much effort into finding out what was really going on.

What should we do?

If student leaders want to be effective in making a difference in the environment, there are three things we need to do… 1) Get really informed – know everything that the Sustainability Office is working on, know all the new and innovative ideas that are being implemented around the world, etc. 2) Get more organized – let’s not be afraid to have structure if it makes us more effective, pay people for the work they do, have goals and plans, pick one issue and address it from every angle. We’re getting had because we, as environmentalists are too flakey. 3) Get political – lets stop wasting our time on frivolous events where we’re the only ones attending our own events, usually out of pity, and lets start changing the mind’s of the big-wigs at the top.

And a little plug for the AMS’ Sustainability Strategy:

Currently I’m working on developing a sustainability strategy for the AMS. I want it to be big. I want it to be bold. There are a lot of focus groups happening over the next two weeks, so make sure you come and participate and get your ideas to us – get more info on the AMS website.

AMS Elections 2008 Media

Letter to the Editor, re: VFM

Post author By Neal Yonson
Post date January 23, 2008
14 Comments on Letter to the Editor, re: VFM

This was sent to us as an anonymous letter to the editor, and we would like to run it as continued discourse on the VFM:

How to Drink the VFM’s Milkshake
name withheld upon request

The VFM contest would have very easy to hack this year. The main problem with VFM is that it is extremely easy to enter. For a measly $150 and five minutes filling out a form, any publication can appear on the ballot. The entry fee was raised from $100 to $150 this year as an attempt to filter out the ‘noise’. As Matt Naylor put it, “the idea is to limit the number in the contest; otherwise it would collapse under its own weight.” Great idea Matt! Too bad you went about it
entirely the wrong way. The voter media website explains the choice of using an entry fee: “It’s better to charge an entry fee than to require media entrants to collect signatures, because an entry fee has far lower social cost.” That last part seems to about sum it up: an entry fee has a low social cost. With a $2000 cash prize on the line, an entry fee with a low social cost and a high return on investment, it is almost like the contest was inviting fly-by night publications to enter just for the money. Matt Naylor’s mistake was focusing on the number of entrants and not the quality of the publications.

So, how could one hack the contest to assure themselves the top prize. The easiest way would be to pull a James Green. James Green, a relatively unknown, ran for mayor of Vancouver in the 2005 civic elections. He received an impressive 4,273 votes, but many think that the majority of James’ votes were actually intended for the similarly named and far more well known candidate, Jim Green. Voters, when scanning the ballot, just voted for the first J. Green they saw. So if
one were to enter the contest with a name similar to another a publication, it can be reasonably assumed that some of the voters would mistakenly vote for it. So which publication’s name would one mimic to generate the most accidental votes? It might be tempting to riff off the The Underground, the top finisher from last year, but as that publication is likely to enter the contest, one would more likely split the vote than win the prize. Luckily for the would-be hacker, the most well known newspaper on campus, The Ubyssey, doesn’t enter the competition. Mark Latham did something called a “multifactor analysis” of last years results, and concluded that had The Ubyssey entered it would have won by a landslide. And thus, The Ubussy is
born.

So unless the election code is changed next year, I am going to drink the VFM’s milkshake. I’LL DRINK IT UP!

AMS Elections 2008

Disconnected sundry thoughts

Post author By Neal Yonson
Post date January 22, 2008
13 Comments on Disconnected sundry thoughts

VFM Hasn’t Failed
Last year we (the VFMs, collectively) created a discourse around issues in the election, and there was a meaningful campaign for the first time in a long while. This year has been less successful, but the media are still influencing how candidates comport themselves and, heck, we even convinced a joke candidate to “go serious.”

Voter turnout shouldn’t be the end goal, nor should it be the yardstick by which VFM success is measured. Voters will only vote when they care; people only care when the people around them care. The VFM project is about building an information base and enlarging the AMS’ critical mass. Even though, last year, the same number of people cast votes as in previous, I’d wager that they were more informed than the year before. At a minimum, it’s creating a new class of informed students. And I’d want to see four years’ worth of results before judging it a failure.

Knoll Slate
My first rule of student politics: never underestimate the left at UBC. No matter the electoral system, there will always be a viable “left-wing” element at UBC. (I hate the term but I use it because people know what I mean.) Since the SPAN days it has been given life by The Knoll which, last year, ran a de facto slate. This year the slate is less pronounced, but still there.

The reason the left can never be discounted is because they have a powerful built-in voter base. First, there will always be a activist core on campuses, and they’re politically engaged. Second, there will be students who, because they’re young, gravitate to the left-wingers because it feels right and appeals to their sensibilities. No matter the merits of the candidates, they’ll get those votes. And that can be enough.

That leads me to two conclusions about this year. First, they’re getting better at abandoning the revolutionary zeal during election time. Check out Nate Crompton’s web page. It’s not only slick and worth of Students for Students at its finest, but it’s downright educational. And a very interesting read. And only uses the word “capitalism” once. And, most importantly, it’s good. (That’s not meant as a backhanded compliment. It’s really very good and insightful.) Second, watch out for Rodrigo. In a year with two Presidential candidates with broad appeal, and a third “wild card” with an interesting cross-section of elite and popular support, that solid voter base might be enough for Rodrigo to win. Especially since I suspect that voter turnout might hit a new low, he could easily get enough support to win.

“Hacks”
What’s wrong with being a “hack”? I’m pretty sure it’s a pejorative term, isn’t it? Of course that’s the very question – how to define “hack”? Often people tend to use it as a synonym for someone who’s hyper-involved, likes to fancy themselves on the “inside.” I have a hard time seeing that as necessarily negative. Just because someone gets involved in student politics and devotes their energies to boosting the campus doesn’t make them a “hack.”

See being a “hack” use to be unequivocally a bad thing. Then, during the halcyon days Wahid, McKechnie, Keys et al., the term was appropriate. Reclaimed, if you will, to mean something more positive.

I always resisted it, as I see the term far more negative implications. I see a hack as someone who’s in politics for ambition’s sake, who derives pleasure from being close to power, from the illusion that they themselves have any whatsoever. It’s someone whose self-esteem is riding on their election result, and for whom the pursuit of power, and the attention it entails, is just as important as eventually getting it. And that’s bad. There are people who fit this description in the AMS, and there are a great many involved people who don’t. Don’t confuse them.

(For a good example of hackery, see the comment on the post below signed by “#96.” That’s Spencer Keys, feeling the need to remind the world that he was the 96th AMS President. Although I’m sure Spencer has enough self-awareness that the irony was intentional. Or was it?)

Endorsements
Since when did it become a pissing contest about endorsements? From my understanding, it’s become an issue that some candidates have more/better endorsements than others. All the lack of endorsements proves is that the candidate didn’t solicit them from someone – it doesn’t prove that nobody supports his/her campaign. Think logically – the absence of something doesn’t prove that it doesn’t exist.

Moreover, an endorsement can come from many places. From a “I think they’re the best” to a sense of duty to a personality clash with an opponent. They’re really worth nothing more than face value, and it bothers me to see people making any noise about them beyond that.

(Also, kudos to the Devil’s Advocate. Dis-endorsing is probably one of the most brilliant ideas ever.)

“Insiders”
Finally, I can’t help but notice that this little blog has started a bit of a trend. I find it entertaining that “insider” has become a part of the discourse in a funny new way – people trying to define themselves negatively vis-a-vis us. The Thunderbird’s blog is entitled “UBC Outsiders,” the Devil’s Advocate prides themselves on being “Insider-free.”

Yet their controlling minds read our site daily. This amuses me.

True story: Gina and I came up with the name on the couch one afternoon last January. “We need something like UBC Insiders, only better.” And lo, it was born.

(Edited to add a shout-out to VPF candidate Andrew, who wants to “make everyone a UBC Insider”!)

AMS Elections 2008

Maayan's Endorsements

Well, I figure there’s no point waiting any longer. If you care, here’s who I’ll be voting for, and briefly why. I haven’t included a scientific dissection of each candidate’s pros and cons, though I’m happy to discuss this in more detail in the comments.

President: Erin Rennie – I talked about this in an earlier post. Notwithstanding Jeff’s rebuke of Tim and I for endorsing her, Erin is the best person for the job. As posted on the Devil’s Advocate, she sent out a release today assuring students that she’s perfectly serious about taking the job and doing her best, if elected. She’s qualified, she’s a leader. Vote for your first choice – or else democracy’s a sham. My first choice is Erin.

(And by the way – if this situation (“this situation” being the one where people are afraid of voting Rennie for fear of “splitting the vote” for their second-favorite candidate) drives you crazy, make sure to support a sensible voting system that prevents vote-splitting next time someone suggests one. This will be occuring in a month or so. So don’t forget.)
The rest behind the jump.

VP Academic: Alex Lougheed – Alex’s platform is solid. He’s matured a lot in the last year. He’s shown that he can work as a team player, he’s conscientious, knowledgeable, and quite creative in his own way. I hope that Alex will continue to develop his internal sense of values, so that he can make decisions that are not only practical and beneficial for students, but also personally meaningful.

VP External: Stefanie Ratjen – Stef’s experience in the UBC community with grassroots activism will help her connect her the VPX portfolio with students. She has strong opinions, but it looks like she’ll ultimately be willing to take direction and be open. Stef’s commitment to lobby on a provincial level is a good thing; her unclear overtures about using CFS in some way to do so need to be clarified.

VP Academic: Sarah Naiman – Sarah has been working very hard this year on the SUB renew project. She planned a successful consultation strategy, and successfully renovated the Pit with VP Finance Brittany Tyson. Watching Sarah speak to the Board of Governors this fall about SUB Renew made me feel proud of the AMS, and proud to be a UBC student. She’s that convincing. Sarah will continue to do a good job on SUB renew, and she’s promised to devote more time to restructure SAC, which I look forward to seeing.

VP Finance: Andrew Forshner – I’ve had the pleasure of working with Andrew this year. He’s clever, practical, has financial experience, and is truly one of the best listeners I know. His commitment to sustainability in the businesses is appreciated.

BoG:
Andrew Carne – Andrew has demonstrated his knowledge of campus development issues. His commitment to communicating with students is important. This year, students have demonstrated an increased interest in BoG decisions – it’ll be great to capitalize on that momentum. I don’t know him personally, but I have it on several good authorities that he impressed in the debates and can be trusted.

Tim Blair – Tim will bring a level of maturity to the Board. As an experienced naturalist, community activist, and professional engineer, Tim has both the right priorities and the necessary credibility to be an effective Board member. He knows alot about sustainability, and a lot about UBC planning issues. He’ll be a credible champion of our open spaces and the Farm.

Senate: As others have mentioned, there’s a great calibre of candidates this year.
Blake Frederick – Blake knows the issues inside out, having worked as the AVP academic for the AMS this year. He’s already got important relationships that will be useful this year. He’s truly thoughtful, and won’t be a fair-weather senator.
Alex Lougheed – I agree with Brendon here. Alex is meticulous and detail oriented. He has some specific ideas about making student senators more effective and cohesive. While these might be a bit hard to achieve, the thought is a good one, and Alex himself will be a great senator.
Philip Edgcumbe – I am very impressed by Philip’s platform. His two main ideas – recording lectures, and allowing students to challege the exam for a course – are both good and practical. The rest of his platform reads like a what’s what of important academic issues. Philip has clearly done his homework, and done it well. He’s young and keen, and will hopefully get the ball rolling on his ideas early.
Alfie Lee – Alfie has woked hard this year both on AMS and senate. His enthusiasm is appreciated. His platform points are all right-on. Study space, timely exam schedules, library hours, teacher training – damn slow senate processes!!
Azim Wazeer – Azim’s platform looks good. The issue of the LPI and TOEFL is a new one, but the annoyance of having to take gazillions of standardized tests is not small for international students. I’m sceptical of Azim’s recommendation about having grad students study at UBC for a year before letting them TA. Many grad students need TA positions to finance their graduate work, especially in their first year.