|
|
|
|
|
22 November 2002
uwRyan.com This website is meant to provide value to UW student by delivering information. It will also supplement the column that I write for Imprint by providing extra information on some of the topics about which I will write in addition to the text of each column. Please provide feedback on what I write as well as give me suggestions of topics to cover. You can send e-mail to me to ryan[at]uwryan[dot]com.
uwstudent.org
Federation of Students 
|
Election reform — nowDon’t wait for more problems to happen
If elections are not run properly a poor candidate might win, or worse yet, a strong candidate might not run. Can you think of a Feds executive that you wish hadn't won? I know many people have their own "favourite" whose victory they regret. For any potential candidate, an unfair process is a deterrent to candidacy unless the process is in one's favour, which sends us back to the problem of the poor candidate. The process under which elections are run should allow voters to determine who they want to serve them. Students' Council dictates such a process through the election procedure and will consider changes to it when they appoint an election committee in December. First, in trying to get the best process for elections, the Feds must determine the principles that guide the process. Last year, I suggested a guide for developing an election procedure. Good procedures should be "Practical, implementable and enforceable procedures to run fair elections where being a competitive candidate does not require an extraordinary expenditure of resources." With the word resources, I refer mainly to time and money, however Feds should come up with what they think is important as this is merely my own suggestion. Some important values contained in this statement are fairness, financial accessibility and reasonable demand on time. A fair procedure would level the playing ground for all candidates, ensuring that voters have a clear picture of who would be best for the position. An example of this is where candidates are assessed an equal cost for the same campaign materials, called fair market value. Ensuring financial accessibility is the recognition that candidates are not less capable for not having money and are not more capable by having excessive funds. This is in part enforced by spending limits. As all candidates are students, victory must not require more time than a student should normally be able to sacrifice, hence demands of campaigning on time should not be too great. Once the principles of an election process are determined, Feds have a basis to judge the current procedure and evaluate proposed changes. Many simple changes could improve the procedure. First, it must acknowledge the existence of the Internet. The only reference to the Internet refers to "improper use" and even this is not explained. Second, there are two different election procedures. Council introduced the second one, an online election procedure, for 2001 to accommodate both the plan to move to online voting and the possibility that the online system might fail. Somewhere along the way, the word "online" was dropped and now there are two different procedures with the same purpose. The answer? Get rid of one. Third, restrictive, unenforceable, and unnecessary rules cause problems. The rule requiring 11 inches of space between posters is one such poor rule. Say candidate A complains that candidate B's poster is too close. If you can determine which was there first, you might think of fining B for the violation. What if, however, someone else moved B's poster closer? The fine might go to A. Wait, why do we have this spacing rule in the first place? Consider the principles of an election procedure and ask if the rule has any value as an unenforceable deterrent. Once these and other problems are solved, we can look at other improvements to the election process. In order to provide voters greater basis to distinguish between candidates, students and candidates should demand better forums. Some forums should be debate-style and others should be like interviews focusing on the election for each position. Content from these should be widely available through transcripts or recordings. This would be of extra value to co-op students so they wouldn't have to decide based on Feds Web site statements or second-hand media coverage of candidates' performance. Once these thing are taken care of we will have better elections and we won't have to talk about the same boring stuff. |