These are my endorsements for the SFSS election, but I’m not sure why I’m doing them. That puts my endorsements in league with the election itself — something we do without really knowing why, or really wanting to. That loud indifference toward our struggling democracy has never been as clear as it is in 2012.
There’s usually a forest of posters on this campus, but that has been reduced to a sad bluff in 2012. New kids might look at the number of posters with shock, but back in my day you could barely see the grey of the concrete (there was also much more snow, and walking through that snow, uphill both ways). This is partially due to the shockingly low number of candidates for each category. The two most important positions (arguably) on the board, the member services officer and the internal relations officer, will be chosen by a simple acclamation vote for lack of interest, as will every department representative except science (which, admittedly, has a candidate willing to die for the position).
Even more than usual, the debates were a sham. The number of regrets and statements given instead of, you know, actual attendance by candidates was depressingly high. At this point, we expect SFU students to exhibit their Olympic-caliber not-giving-a-shit skills, but usually candidates at least buy into the pageantry. This time, as students in Surrey and Burnaby both looked on with confusion and a lack of interest, most of what they saw was Independent Electoral Commission chief Ali Godson reading tepid statements in absence of a warm body. It was embarrassing.
Worse still was the student attendance at the debates. I put less than 75 people at peak at the Burnaby debates who were not candidates or IEC officials, or just eating lunch in the Atrium cafeteria. More than half of these straggled out midway through, leaving maybe 20 around by the time referendum questions were ‘debated’. If we broke 10 civilians in Surrey my count was way off. So where do we go from here?
It’s a truth universally acknowledged that if you stand in a group of political science majors for long enough, the probability of someone remarking that non-participation is as good as a vote against the system provided approaches one. At this point, SFU is loudly proclaiming that the SFSS is an organization it wants no part of, which no longer needs to exist. My question is, why don’t we give students what they want?
The entirety of the SFSS (and much of total ‘student participation’ at SFU) is run by a circle of people that I estimate to be lower than 300. There’s brackish between different organizations, with many ‘ambitious’ students sitting in more than one position. But when only five per cent of the electorate comes out to vote, as they did in 2007, that circle of 300 represents a healthy chunk of the roughly 1,500 students that percentage delineates.
It takes the threat of losing the U-Pass to get a paltry 23 per cent out to the polls, as occured in 2011, and even the months long debacle of CFS defederation only brought 17 per cent to voting booths. I’ll never forget the by-election results night that erupted into rapturous cheering when it was announced when the turnout was about seven per cent for key referenda. As one of the few people who actually paid attention this year, I will predict we don’t break 10 per cent. These numbers are simply untenable for a multi-million dollar society, and for a mandate to manage that much of your money.
The University Act says we require a student society to represent our interests, but it is becoming obvious that our interests are not the ‘services’ and ‘advocacy’ that have been gradually read into the duties of such an organization. If we define our interests as ‘saving the money we would spend on a student society to get us out of this glorified degree mill a touch faster’, I don’t think a jury could convict us. The undergraduates (and the grads of the GSS, who are having similar participation problems) have spoken, and their deafening silence makes it clear we must investigate a de facto abolishment of the SFSS.
This isn’t to say there aren’t people trying to do good things, but there just isn’t enough participation to justify any major projects or initiatives anymore. A truly progressive, radical campus would have the courage to listen to the vast majority of students and not the vocal, tiny minority perpetuating it all for CV entries. Shut it down, is what they’re saying, and for the first time, I agree with them.
If there’s a silver lining in this, it’s that my endorsements and the votes of the few are just votes for who gets to rearrange the deckchairs on the Titanic. A silver lining for those elected? They’ll get to rule with a knowing smile, with any criticism leveled at them waved off with a line from a pop punk bard: “If we’re fucked up, you’re to blame.”
PRESIDENT
Should win: Lorenz Yeung Will win: Lorenz Yeung
The only presidential candidate to show up to the Surrey debate, and the only one who has seen the way SFSS sausages are made. As a former MSO, maybe he can be the one to convince SFU that the SFSS is actually a thing that exists.
TREASURER
Should win: Michael McDonell
Will win: Kevin Zhang
McDonell seems engaged, if a bit obsessed with a private education vendetta his election wouldn’t really allow him to attack much. Zhang has been fairly invisible as ERO, just like at the Surrey debates.
UNIVERSITY RELATIONS OFFICER
Should win: Jeff McCann Will win: Jeff McCann
Continuity is a rare thing in the SFSS, and we really need all we can get, especially if that $65 million dollar building goes through. I can’t wait for Besan to shed the slate holding her back and run for president.
EXTERNAL RELATIONS OFFICER
Should win:
Stephanie Boulding
Will win:
Meaghan Wilson
Our terrible debate structure aside, Boulding was the only one to show some real poise and maturity, avoiding asking Meaghan Wilson about her sleep habits. Didn’t attend the Surrey debates, but who the hell did.
MEMBER-AT-LARGE
Should win:
Ashleigh Girodat
Will win:
Ashleigh Girodat
The only member to show up with ideas in a race where one candidate was absent for both, and where one candidate openly admitted the position was next to useless. I am fully aware I’m supposed to pick two.
