During UTSU elections it is always a good idea to step back from all the Orwellian0-sounded Solidarity and Unspecified Change and look at the election process itself. Like any municipal election, byelection or election in an authoritarian state, the University of Toronto Students’ Union elections tend to have a low voter turn out.

In the UTSU Elections the rules determine the outcome as much as any other factor yet electoral-reform doesn’t seem to be on the radar as an issue this year. The Varsity writes:

Gabe de Roche asked both candidates about the Elections Procedures Code. “Currently the incumbency rate over the past seven years at the UTSU is one hundred per cent. I’ve never heard of another democracy where that’s the incumbency rate,” he said.

“So to clarify what that means to the audience, candidates who are running as incumbents are winning every time?” asked Meslin [the moderator.]

“Yes, they’re incapable of losing,” said de Roche, drawing laughter from the audience.

Amendosun did not respond to the question. Maher said reform of the EPC is a top priority, and that he found the rules “restrictive” and “draconian.

The Elections Procedure Code (EPC) for the University of Toronto Students’ Union defines “Campaign Material” as “any item, design, sound, symbol or mark that is created or copied in any form in order to and / or likely to influence at least one voter to cast a ballot in favour or in opposition of a candidate” and “Campaigning” as “any attempt by an individual or organization to encourage a student to cast a ballot in favour or in opposition of a candidate. This may occur with or without campaign material.” These definitions are so broad that almost anything a candidate does during the campaign falls into the category of campaigning and therefore must be approved by the CRO (Article IV Section 1, F.)

The EPC does mention use of internet campaigning: “O. A candidate using a website or online network as a campaign tool is responsible for the moderation of all materials so that they are in accordance with the rules of fair play. Violations of campaigning rules on websites and / or online networks by candidates and / or arm’s-length parties are also subject to the penalties detailed in Section 7.1 Violation of Campaign Rules” but the CRO has 48 hours to approve every single action a candidate does online (each tweet, YouTube video, and Facebook group.)

The EPC ensures that the UTSU Elections move at a snails-pace while the rest of the University of Toronto continues to move at the same speed as the Internet, lightening-fast. Election rules that are extremely punitive can isolate the campaigns for the voters but can also deal out $5000s of punishment for a 50¢s of crime (as happened at York University where candidates were disqualified for handing out copies of a student newspaper while campaigning.) Whether “Stronger Together” or “Change U of T” wins this election the UTSU needs to bring the EPC out of the 1960s and into 2010.

—————————————————————————————–

Web 2.0 and UTSU 2010:

Websites: Stronger Together / Change U of T

Facebook Group: Stronger Together / Change U of T

Facebook Group Stats:  ST: 1401 / Change: 1681

Youtube: Stronger Together / Change U of T

Twitter Hashtag for the election: #UTSU2010

Video of the candidate debates: Found on Ustream here.

Radio of the candidate debates: Found on The Varsity website here.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 17th, 2010 at 2:42 pm and is filed under Events, Guest Blogger, On Campus, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.