|
|
|
|
|
07 February 2003
uwRyan.com This website is meant to provide value to UW student by delivering information. It shares its name with the column that I write for Imprint. 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 
|
How to judge your vote
The Bombshelter has now been closed for three weeks as voting starts in Feds elections. Candidates are making predictions of what they would do next year if elected, yet none of last year's candidates predicted the situation with the Feds bars and Feds' relationship with university administration. As voters decide for whom to vote they must judge not only a candidate's plans, but the likelihood of fulfilling those plans, and the candidate's future performance in unforeseen situations. Some plans are unfeasible or impossible and people don't realize it until after they take office and understand the situation better or until they try it and fail. As I wrote last week Robert Robson's plan to give a dividend to students is in some ways possible but isn't very feasible under Feds as a not-for-profit corporation. On Monday night at a forum Robson admitted his error. It is a credit to him to acknowledge his mistake, but then not knowing in the first place is more of a discredit. If voters consider this issue they must decide how they consider each side. One thing to note is that other candidates may have ideas that neither they nor the voters know are unfeasible. Voters must then judge the ideas and plans of candidates. On the campaign trail candidates readily recognize that past candidates have not fulfilled all the commitments they made during campaigning. These same candidates, with no inkling of the irony, step forth and proclaim plans that this year *will* get implemented. Platforms or parts of platforms are often left to the side when people realize the job is different than expected. Since the unprecedented large frosh class of 1999, Feds candidates have been "committed" to housing and promised to fight the 75m spacing restriction on lodging houses. Almost four years later on the verge of a new class of unprecedented size we have yet to see results. A universal bus pass has been a platform point before as has, everyone's favourite, fighting tuition increases, maintaining accessibility and also quality. Voters then must judge how a plan might be fulfilled. When I applied for this column in May last year, one of my topics was "Should Feds get its own liquor licence?" When the problem with the licensing of the expanded Bombshelter patio arose last September, I wrote on that topic. The issue has roots further back with the violence at hip-hop nights at Fed Hall about five years ago. Four years ago admin unilaterally cancelled a rave at Fed Hall. Last year admin was going to restrict the admittance to the Bomber to a number less than the total capacity to enforce the capacity in each room, until Feds suggested the idea of having the line-up in Ground Zero. The standoff on bar control and autonomy has yet to be resolved so we cannot retrospectively judge the current exec's performance. Once it comes to an end they must take blame or credit for the outcome and tell the students and thence future executives all about it. Voters must then also judge each candidate as a person. When you vote make sure you are informed. Poster colour, campaign teams, and being the friend of a friend are all poor ways to decide. In addition to reading what the candidates have to say about themselves, which is the bulk of election information, look to other sources for a better picture. Be careful with your decision, but remember most of you will get to vote all over again next year |