Written by Corbett Gildersleve, Alumnus
You’ve built your team, made your posters, and you’ve been campaigning your heart out. What comes next is the Burnaby debate, which will be the only debate occurring this election. Let’s go over the history of the debates, what they’re all about, and how you can succeed in this election with this year’s debate in mind.
For years, the debates have struggled to capture the average student’s attention, and you can’t solely blame student apathy. My first experience with the debates was in the spring of 2015, when I ran for the Applied Sciences Representative position.
The first one was at the Vancouver campus debate, held in Harbour Center 2270. The only attendees were candidates and their friends, and even then only about half the candidates actually attended. Even so, it was useful for a newbie like me to get some practice making my pitch and answering a few questions. The second debate, held in the Mezzanine at Surrey campus, was a little bit better, with more candidates attending. But little interest was paid by students, even though it was out in the open.
Burnaby was the “big one” split up over two days: one for the at-large and faculty reps, and one for the executives.
You can view the executive debates on the SFSS’s YouTube channel, but that year saw some technical issues in video recording. If you watch the Vancouver debate recording, most of my section got cut out and I’m not sure why. Future election cycles had similar issues. Some of the debates were livestreamed, and only the 2017 spring election debates are on Youtube.
Both 2016 and 2017 saw changes to the debate schedules. Last year’s debates happened particularly early on the timeline; Burnaby’s occurred only a few days after the campaign period started, and Surrey’s was held the following day. Vancouver’s got cut entirely, allegedly due to its historically low turnout. The reasons for this might range from the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) team being selected later than normal, to a lack of training materials and funding to pay for the commissioners’ time, to deficient advertising.
What does all of that have to do with prepping for the upcoming debate? Because of their low student turnout, the debates often are only useful for sizing up other candidates and seeing who you might be working with. However, while the debates are kind of useless as a means to market yourself to voters, you still need to make a good showing. That involves attending the debate, presenting yourself well, making solid criticism of your opponents’ platforms, and defending your own — just like you would need to do at the board and committee tables.
Even if most students don’t come to watch, there will still be board members, other candidates, and their friends in attendance. If you don’t know the job you’re running for well enough, or understand why your ideas might cost too much, then they will call you out on it during the debates.
It’s possible that this won’t matter at first, since so few students attend the debates. But if you manage to win after a poor showing, it will affect your interactions with other board members for at least the first term. It’s a lot easier to work with people if there is mutual respect.
The last few debates were lacklustre due to the debate schedule and candidates not submitting their platforms on time. In some cases, like in 2017, it was due to the unexpectedly early debate schedule. In others, it was because of political strategy: you can’t be attacked on your ideas if no one knows them!
As a candidate, you should be calling out that kind of political cowardice hard. After all, those who fail to submit platforms on time can and do still attend the debates and campaign. A lack of a platform just means it’s not on the IEC website, making it difficult to contradict or argue against. Another related issue is creating social media campaign pages and then not answering platform questions; some guilty parties on the current board know who they are.
This election will also be the first one to fall under the new elections policies. Staff will be in charge for planning and running the debates, with the IEC moderating. It might functionally be better, but I disagree with taking away student opportunities to do this work, especially since this is part of the process for selecting the new bosses of the SFSS.
RELATED: “The Independent Electoral Commission: independent no more?”
I would have preferred a more comprehensive training system for the IEC commissioners, instead of SFSS staff taking over core parts of the election system. The goal should be finding ways to expand the debates, reach and attract more students, and involve them in the process.
Furthermore, there will only be one set of debates, and since the whole reason for changing the policy was low turnout at Surrey and Vancouver, that set will almost certainly be in Burnaby. Shrinking the debates down to just Burnaby campus, even in an attempt to retool it, doesn’t help with our relationship with Surrey and Vancouver students. We already have enough of a Burnaby bias. Why add to it?
While the debates have been a little rocky recently, and not many students get involved, it’s still important to attend and present your position well. This will help later down the road while working with other Board members and defending your points at the board table. However, this election’s debate will be a bit different, so you’ll need to prepare more than in past years, where you could use the Vancouver and Surrey debates to practice. Good luck!
