[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
With as much scrutiny and attention as there has been on electing Vice-Presidents this year within the McMaster Students Union, it’s easy to miss a lot of the progress that’s been made compared to previous years.
Most recent and public of these were the VP Meet-and-Greet events, a chance for the 10 candidates variably running for VP Administration, Finance and Education to get to share and connect with the general public.
“I think it is very good for outreach, it is a good change for ... MSU members to come out and get to know their VP candidates and to inform and advise their SRA members who they want as their VP candidate,” said current MSU President Ehima Osazuwa.
As a showcase of the candidates, it’s a fresh addition to improving transparency for roles that earn nearly $40,000 in salary over the year and are chiefly responsible for the day-to-day functions of the MSU, a multi-million dollar organization.
But the freshness is perhaps also a result of the diverse pool of candidates that are running for each of the positions; amongst the 10 candidates running for three spots this year, seven of them are female, with one of the positions guaranteed to be held by a female.
With a strong possibility that women will even make up half of the Board of Directors next year, it’s one of many areas that candidates hope are starting to become more open for any and all individuals.
The issue of women in governance has been a topic of debate within the MSU to varying degrees, and recent initiatives like MSU and You have been trying to encourage and support women to run for leadership positions within the union.
As Giuliana Guarna, current VP Administration explained, the emphasis to her is not about ensuring women are filling a certain quota of roles; rather, it’s the process of establishing equal opportunity and support for women and others who aren’t fairly represented at a governance level.
“I think people underestimate how important it is to literally be able to see someone who looks like you, who talks like you and who has the same values as you in these leadership positions,” said Guarna.
“If you were a first year last year, and you see four men on the BoD, that’s isolating. Just visually, you don’t see yourself there. No one’s explicitly telling you that that’s not for you, but there’s that implicit messaging that maybe that’s not where you’re supposed to be.”
As Guarna also noted, this hasn’t been an issue of competency, as the Part-Time Managers who manage the various services within the MSU have historically been predominantly female. Next year, women will make up around 15 of the 20 or so PTM positions, a consistent trend in the history of the MSU.
As a current PTM herself, VP Administration candidate Nishan Zewge-Abubaker commented on the increase in female candidates, stating that “It’s kind of an indication of [how] people are feeling encouraged to run for these kinds of positions.”
This pattern of female organizers behind the scenes is even further evident when recognizing that four of the 10 candidates running for VPs previously worked as a campaign manager during Presidentials this year.
It’s an exciting prospect to see so many qualified and diverse individuals come from a variety of backgrounds, and several of the candidates explained how encouraging and important it’s been to see role models from before.
Said VP Finance candidate Miranda Clayton, “Seeing [former VP Administration] Anna D’Angela in my first year in the MSU actually made a bigger impact than I initially thought; I realized that’s where I’ve seen the most women.”
“I had to talk myself into running for VP Finance, because I’ve never seen a woman be successful in this role.”
Shaarujaa Nadarajah, another VP Administration candidate added, “We want more women in governance, we want more females in high leadership positions.”
The Student Representative Assembly for the 2016-17 year will decide the VPs for next year over a two-day period from April 2nd to 3rd.
With files from Saad Ejaz.
Photo Credit: Kareem Baassiri
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
[adrotate banner="16"]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
With the announcement of the new President-elect, the MSU also revealed the results of the VP electoral referendum. During this election period, students not only had the chance to vote for their choice candidate for president, but to also vote for or against (or abstain) initiating an election process for MSU Vice-Presidents.
The referendum resulted in 66.4 percent of the votes in favour of the process, with 4,590 students saying “yes” to VP at-large elections. While this number is impressive, it wasn’t enough for the referendum to pass. A constitutional referendum requires two-thirds of the votes to pass, or in other words, 66.67% “yes” votes. Had it received 20 more votes, or roughly 0.27% more support, McMaster would currently be moving towards an at-large VP electoral system.
“We were angry and disappointed in ourselves. We could have made just one more class talk, or ask more people to vote in order for it to pass,” said Esra Bengizi, one of the managers of the pro-VP reform campaign, in an interview with a Silhouette reporter.
The pro-referendum campaign group formed in early November after the Student Mobilization Syndicate presented a petition with over 800 signatures to the Student Representative Assembly requesting the right for students to vote for their VPs (Education, Administration and Finance) — a task that is currently done exclusively by the SRA. The SRA addressed the petition at their Nov. 1 meeting and decided that the vote would go to referendum as opposed to becoming a constitutional amendment.
Had the referendum passed, McMaster wouldn’t be the first school to switch to an at-large VP electoral system. Western University currently runs on a system that allows students to vote for two of their five VPs. The system has proven successful — as they have managed to continually elect a candidate for each position — but over the years voter turnout has decreased, and voter fatigue is assumed to play a role in this.
Although this recent loss is a blow to the efforts of pro-referendum campaign group, this may not be the end of the group’s campaigning. The VP Referendum is not the first to fail on a ballot, and this year doesn’t have to be the end of its campaigning. The Health Care Referenda, which constituted of three different questions related to the student health plan, failed the first run during the elections for the 2014-15 MSU President. The referenda were added to the ballot again the following year, and after increased promotions and education, all three referenda passed.
“With a team of only ten people we were able to get 4,590 voters to say yes,” Bengizi said. “Imagine if we had more. I was shocked to see such a success, and seeing this makes me even more ambitious to try again… we will not give up, we are going to continue to fight”.
*Files from Shalom Joseph
Photo Credit: Michael Gallagher/ Production Editor
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
[adrotate banner="16"]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
This is an argument independent of the opinions of the Presidential candidates.
But when it comes to the referendum on VPs at-large, it's clear that it's unfashionable to be against an at-large vote.
To catch anyone up: until now, the Student Representative Assembly has internally elected the McMaster Students Union’s three vice presidents. The three VPs, along with the President, make up the Board of Directors that deal with the daily concerns of the MSU on a full-time basis.
However, after a push from students that began last year, the student body will be voting in a referendum on whether or not they want VP elections to be open to the general student body.
YES, for VP elections to move to an open vote.
NO, for VP elections to remain decided by the SRA.
So on one hand, it's understandable why it's unpopular to be against VP elections at-large. By saying no, are you against the opinions of the students? Are you against what democracy stands for? Are you saying that students can't decide for themselves what is right?
But this is a perversion of what a "no" argument entails: that a body of evidence indicates a host of issues with moving to an at-large system for VPs.
Sure, correlation does not equal causation, but voter turnout has steadily declined at Western University by 50 percent after moving away from internally elected VPs.
And by running a slate model (where candidates must run in teams) at-large, Queen's University has had its Board-equivalent acclaimed for the past two years.
Anecdotally speaking, this fatigue shouldn't come as a surprise if students are asked to make an informed vote on their MSU President, their Vice-Presidents, their SRA members and the various positions on their faculty societies, usually within the span of a month.
I have zero allegiance to the SRA, and if I felt that there was real, tangible evidence on why moving at-large is healthy for the democratic process, I would support it.
And yet there is none.
I am not defending the SRA's right to decide our VPs. I am defending our right to hold the SRA accountable.
Because if we argue that the SRA is unable to make appropriate decisions on our behalf, then we are arguing about a much larger problem; that our student representatives no longer represent our opinions.
If the SRA is biased or unrepresentative, what about the other decisions they make on our behalf? Should the introduction of every MSU service be decided by a public vote? Each new service involves the hiring of a paid, Part-Time Manager, and the impact of a service arguably lasts far longer than the one-year term of a VP.
I am glad that a service like WGEN was voted in unanimously by the SRA, instead of held to an open, at-large vote where toxic and sexist comments might have been made in ignorance.
And while I'm voting no, I want to clarify my stance, as I still want to see two major changes to the VP elections process.
The first change is for the VP elections to be decided by an open ballot, where the votes of each SRA member are transparent to the body of students they represent.
My representatives should not be afraid to explain their choices if they claim to represent my interests, and they should be accountable for the decisions they make on my behalf.
And the second change I want implemented is for the VP candidates to begin their internal campaigns at the same time that SRA positions open up.
Why does this matter, if the general student population isn't voting for our VPs?
Primarily because it forces individuals running for the SRA to be informed and accountable about our VP candidates.
Even if I invest my time to learn about each of the VP candidates, I'm not concerned if I prefer VP candidate X, while my prospective SRA representative prefers VP candidate Y. What I care about is that the people who claim to represent my interests have put in the time to have an informed opinion, and it's an opportunity for someone to prove just how serious they are.
This is not telling you that voting YES is wrong. If you're frustrated with the SRA, that's more than fair. I am still irritated by the SRA’s decision to remain neutral and it makes me wonder how that could possibly be helpful to the student body.
You should expect more from your SRA, and you should want to hold them accountable. Moving VP elections to an at-large system is ignoring a problem rather than fixing one.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By: Gabi Herman and Isaac Kinley
From Jan. 26-28, in addition to electing their next McMaster Students Union President, McMaster students will be able to vote in a referendum concerning the election of MSU Vice Presidents. The MSU has three Vice Presidents: Administration, Education and Finance. Currently, the Vice Presidents are elected by the Student Representative Assembly, a student council that includes faculty representatives and the current MSU President and Vice Presidents.
The current referendum will allow students to vote in favour of keeping the current system or switching to an at-large vice presidential election. Since this change would require altering the MSU constitution, the “yes” side will have to garner at least two thirds of the vote in order for it to pass.
The motion was put forward by Eric Gillis (SRA Social Sciences) at the 2015 MSU General Assembly in March. Earlier this school year, the Student Mobilization Syndicate uploaded a petition to Change.org asking that the question of direct election of Vice Presidents be put to McMaster students in a referendum. The petition gathered more than 800 written signatures and subsequently, the SRA voted to hold the referendum. However, going into the campaign period, they voted to maintain a neutral position on the referendum question. Looking forward, students will have to decide where they stand on the issue.
The referendum question, as it will appear on the ballot, is:
This referendum concerns the MSU Vice President elections. Currently, the three Vice President positions are elected through the Student Representative Assembly (SRA). A proposal has been put forth to move the Vice President elections away from the current system to an at large election. The format of this at large election is currently undefined and can take on many forms.
This is a constitutional referendum, which means it requires two thirds of the vote to pass. Abstentions will not be included in calculating the vote.
Are you in favour of changing the MSU Constitution to include an at large MSU Vice President Election?
Yes
No
Abstain
For more information, visit https://www.msumcmaster.ca/services-directory/31-elections-department/referendum-2016. Information on the “Yes” side campaign is available at http://www.vpref.ca/
Below, two Silhouette contributors examine the advantages and drawbacks of both positions.
The “Yes” side:
There are a number of problems with the current system. For one, while a respectable 42 percent of eligible students turned out to vote in the 2015 presidential election, most faculties saw turnouts below 30 percent in the SRA elections. This means that the people tasked with choosing vice-presidents are themselves only elected by a small minority of MSU members.
Furthermore, there’s little anonymity in a group as small at the SRA. If its members know Vice Presidential candidates personally, this will likely bias their vote and impede their ability to make a disinterested choice on behalf of all McMaster students.
Allowing the entire MSU membership to elect its Vice Presidents would solve both these problems. If voter turnout for vice presidential elections is close to that of our presidential elections, this would make VPs not only directly elected by McMaster students, but elected by a larger proportion of them than are represented in the SRA.
Additionally, vice presidential candidates would have to make their cases to the student body directly rather than behind closed doors to the SRA, increasing the transparency of the election and giving students a better idea of the platforms of student government hopefuls.
It seems odd to have people as powerful as the Vice Presidents elected by an intermediary group that only represents a small minority of eligible voters. Voting “yes” in the upcoming referendum will allow McMaster students to have a greater say in the decisions affecting them.
The “No” side:
Selecting a vice presidential team is no easy job. The election process for each Vice President is a long process. Every candidate is required to meet individually with each member of the SRA. This allows every SRA member to gain a deep understanding of each candidate’s platform, one that would be near impossible to achieve for every student at large. In fact, the job has become so difficult that last year’s meeting lasted 22 hours. A motion for all MSU members to be eligible to vote for VPs will be voted on in a referendum this coming election, but many believe it would not be the right decision.
An at-large vote would require VP candidates to campaign, which many report make VP positions less accessible to prospective candidates. Robyn Fishbein, a fourth year Sociology student, was a voting member of the VP Election Reform Ad-Hoc Committee last summer. “It’s not the VP’s job to be the face of the organization, and I think that makes a really big difference,” says Fishbein. Vice Presidents work mostly behind the scenes, while the MSU President and SRA members have inherently public roles. The highly public nature of the campaign creates a barrier to students who are ultimately interested in holding leadership roles that are less public than the President and SRA members.
The challenges of allowing all MSU members to vote also include student disengagement. The Ad-Hoc Committee report points out that at-large voters may be vulnerable to “voter fatigue,” which might contribute to a lower voter turnout. The VP elections would also require many names and positions on one ballot; with more names on a ballot, voters are more likely to vote at random. And, says Fishbein, “let’s face it, so many elections can get annoying.”
Although counterintuitive, many believe that the MSU democracy functions best without more opportunities to vote. Regardless of the result of the referendum, major restructuring will have to take place to prevent more inefficient, daylong meetings.
By: Chukky Ibe
What happens when we treat student politics like warfare?
With ideas as our weapons, we convince ourselves we cannot concede one inch of ground lest we lose. Direct opposition becomes the only acceptable way to win. Debates and arguments replace collaboration and dialogue, and there is no honour in changing one’s mind once you have stated your position. This adversarial style of debate does not incentivize moral diversity. It does not explore various ideological certainties and the experiences that lead people to reach their diverse moral and ideological predispositions. This warlike culture is pervasive in all aspects of society. It limits the information we get rather than broadening it. It is the knee jerk reaction you experience – but may not entirely think through – when you hear something you disagree with. It is the Bill O’Riley of dialogue.
This paradigm is exactly what we have seen happen with debates surrounding vice presidential elections on campus. Last year, a proposition was put forward to the General Assembly that students, not the SRA, should elect their student body Vice Presidents (Education, Finance, and Administration). Debates on VP reform have been framed as the two sides – students and representatives – in opposition to each other; as direct democracy versus representative democracy. Some basic nuances have been lost.
The VPs have different portfolios and are responsible for different facets of the MSU. To compare them is to compare apples and oranges. Is it useful for the VP Administration to be elected by a referendum? Should the general manager and the comptroller, as people directly involved in the MSU’s accounting, get more say about the VP Finance? What do the VP Education, and VP Administration have in common? Should they be chosen the same way? Giving students the simple choice on their ballot of “yes/no/abstain” doesn’t allow Marauders to explore or understand the intricacies of each position.
This dichotomy that students have been forced to choose from has stemmed from the “argument culture” – or warlike debates – surrounding the issue. By presenting the options as oversimplified extremes, argument culture has limited our understanding rather than expanding it. Rather than seeking various forms of evidence, the debate has simplified complex phenomena with a “Yes” or “No” binary that does not account for all available possibilities. The truth has become the winner of the debate, and the perspectives of the losers are nullified and invalidated. Issues have been presented as having only two sides; winner takes all.
The MSU leadership has spent more time and talent defending outlandish claims than advancing their ideas. Suggestions for dialogue are laughable. Both sides are in the pursuit for victory and not truth. There is little consideration that current options may be inadequate, because opposition is viewed as our only method of inquiry. When opposition does not acknowledge complexity, then argument culture is doing more damage than good.
Issues have been presented as having only two sides; winner takes all.
Although the issue is going to referendum, the outcome is now of little significance. The union leadership continually showcases its inability to embrace its diversity of opinions. Warfare and argument culture remains its default position. In this, Marauders will always lose and common sense will never prevail. Democracy dies when debate trumps dialogue.
Photo Credit: Jon White/Photo Editor
Changes could soon be coming to the MSU’s Board of Directors elections. Earlier in October, the Student Mobilization Syndicate presented a petition with over 800 signatures to the VP (Administration) asking that all MSU members be eligible to vote for the three VPs (Administration, Education, Finance) in addition to the President. This request will be discussed at the upcoming SRA meeting on Nov. 1, where members will vote to take a stance on the issue. Based on this vote, the SRA will make a recommendation that students vote in favour of or against the election of VPs. The SRA will take a stance on this referenda because it is a Constitutional amendment, unlike, for example, the newly passed health care coverage referendum.
MSU President Ehima Osazuwa was ecstatic at the thought of opening the VP elections to the MSU at-large. “I’m very excited that students get a chance to decide what they want. That’s been my biggest position so far,” he said. He added, “[Whether students] want to elect VPs at large or not, I’m glad they will finally get that chance.”
Despite his excitement, Osazuwa also expressed concern over how the student body will vote. “It’s going to be close because it needs to be two-thirds affirmative. So two thirds of the people who go to the polls need to say yes and that includes abstainers,” he explained.
Regardless of the SRA’s vote to endorse the amendment or not, it will go to referendum this winter.
