Students deserve better than this

The SRA was wrong to take a negative stance on the at-large vice-presidential election question. Students should be pissed off about the way this referendum has been discussed.

For the uninformed, members of the SRA, who are elected by students, currently elect the MSU’s vice-presidents. This issue was on the 2016 MSU presidential ballot, and the referendum narrowly failed.

Of the 9,478 votes, 27.1 per cent were abstentions. Attempting to create a reason for that number is a fool’s game, but it is fair to say a large portion of students were so unsure of where they stood on this issue, they chose not to vote.

The SRA’s voice matters here, because their stance goes on the ballot. If you’re sitting there, about to make a decision that you haven’t really done any research about, and there’s a little sentence that says “Hey, your elected group says you should choose option [x]” that can be influential.

I understand that the SRA is more informed about student issues than the average voter, and there are times (like the Exclusive Club Card) where they should take a stance in order to help students.

But should they be influencing the voters in a case that directly impacts the power of the SRA? No.

Students should be doing the research to determine how they want their government to operate, not being led by the governing body what is best for the system.

Doing the research isn’t that easy to do this year, either. The referendum is being run during a by-election. The student petition that brought this issue to referendum specified that they put this on the November by-election ballot but there are different rules for by-elections.

The campaigning period is only four days – Oct. 31-Nov 3 – instead of the typical duration of the presidential campaign. This means that “vote no” or “vote yes” sides have less time to discuss their viewpoints in a public space. The SRA voting to take a negative stance gives the would-be “vote no” campaign side a two-week head start.

SRA Science released a video on their Facebook page, outlining each member’s decision and reasoning. While this is a transparent way of communicating with constituents, it also creates an argument for the undecided voter without a counter-argument.

However, there may not be a “vote no” side. That makes it easier for those who want students to vote no, because if you’re not on a campaign team, you have a greater freedom of speech.

Is the elections committee going to punish someone for tweeting tomorrow about why they are voting no?

The issues do not stop there. Four days is not enough time for students to get the whole picture, especially when the Silhouette - the main media source for student politics - prints on weekly schedules.

Campaign sides would be breaking the rules if a piece was published in Oct. 24 issue. The existence of these campaign teams is not supposed to be public knowledge until Oct. 27, the end of the nominations period.

In theory, the Silhouette could post articles online at the start of the campaign period, but we have significantly more reach if we combine print and online. The Silhouette contacted the MSU elections office to see if there could be an exception made, since it makes sense that the student paper would feature opinion pieces on referendum questions. We did not receive a response.

This is all bullshit. Students deserve better than a four-day campaign where the impacted group has a unique ability to influence the voter on the ballot.

If the intention of the SRA’s stance is to inform students of what is best, there were better solutions.

So start doing your research now. Look up the pros and cons of each side, talk to your friends about it, and see what your friends at other universities think about their system.

The Silhouette published Opinion pieces on the issue in January 2016: just search “VP referendum” on thesil.ca.

I want a fair referendum to happen, not one that follows these rules. If you have thoughts on the referendum questions, send an opinion piece to thesil@thesil.ca. Campaign teams have to follow the four-day window but we do not.

The student body can make up for where the SRA failed by starting a conversation in a balanced way, not by leading the conversation towards a certain decision.