punditry.ca — uncovering DSU elections

Elections happen every year at the DSU. Each year there are winners and losers. With this frequency, and the number of candidates in the running, there is no shortage of opinion on how to run an effective campaign and how to win.

Having been successful in two elections, working on the elections committee, and watching far too many races to still be in my undergrad, I have some thoughts to share on how to stroll to electoral victory.

If there is one undeniable fact about elections at the DSU it is this:

The candidates who are most likely to win are already in the best position to do so well before the campaign has begun.

We know that incumbency has traditionally been an irrevocable ticket back to Council Chambers. After all, the campaign period is only one week.
If you run for the same position, and you’ve managed not to get impeached, the sage voters take that as a sure sign you’re the proper person for the job. If you work for a year on the executive and manage not to throw anyone under the bus, spew diatribes in or at council, or resort to slander on page four of the Gazette, I’d say chances are they’re right.

Viewing this objectively, and with more than a modicum of personal experience, there are a few things incumbents possess that easily explain this phenomenon.

First, incumbents have been through an election before. What’s more, they’ve been successful. They know the rigours of preparing posters and other campaign materials, and how to perform well in a debate (I say this because nobody ever says anything substantive enough to win; they just manage to look and sound better than their opponent on a given subject). Incumbents understand what makes for an effective class talk and which classes are most important to speak in. The rules laid out in candidates’ café are a refresher course for them. A functional knowledge is necessary but it is probably the most accessible component to putting together a win at the polls for any candidate, incumbent or otherwise.

Second, and more importantly, incumbents have had a year to prove to people that they can do the job. They have the DSU council experience that is essential. The personal relationships formed in a year on council are what drive the insider vote, which I think I’ve managed to convince almost everyone is the only reliable predictor of waltzing past the post first (I understand that the DSU uses preferential ballot, but that was more eloquent).

Working with societies and involved volunteers, taking part in Orientation Week with the rapt attention of thousands of freshmen, and being profiled in campus news outlets and other local media all work in favour of those who have cut their teeth in Room 222 of the SUB. Outsider candidates can only reasonably expect to bring a few insiders to their side, if they can sway any, once the official candidate list is made known.

Finally, these races are about policies and positions for the interested few. In each race when it comes to capturing the attention of Joe and Jane Undeclared, no matter the position, it is about who you know and not what you know. I’ve worked at polling stations and can confidently say most people who don’t vote in the first 24 hours of balloting have no idea who you are or what you stand for. Some will take the time to do their research online once they’ve heard about the campaign and a volunteer has urged them to vote. Far more will vote for a couple of the positions where they recognize the photo of the candidate or have been told “(s)he’s a good dude(tte)” by a friend. None have openly admitted to voting purely based on looks.

You may be wondering: what does this mean for me if I’m not an incumbent?

First it means I hope you’re not running against one. Secondly it means there are candidates in the race who probably have all the same qualities, and they’re already beating you.

There are candidates each year who have aspired to a position on the DSU executive and worked toward that goal every day since they set foot on campus. If they are a decent person and a hard worker, chances are they have cultivated a public image on campus in any combination of roles. I call these people incumbent lites.

I would never argue that these candidates are owed anything, but with less than a month to go before the next executive team is chosen anyone else has a lot of catching up to do.

The best prepared candidates have the same relationships, the same exposure, and been part of the same culture as any incumbent can claim for at least the last year. If they are anything like me they probably wrote their campaign speech over Christmas vacation. They’ve talked to influential peers and have tested their theories on what issues students care about most. They know who their supporters will be, and they know what issues are their strengths.

Unrefined public opinion gathering is one of the most astute tactics of campaign organizing and it’s perfectly acceptable for it to occur before 8:00am on the Monday of campaign week.

Incumbents and incumbent lites have a distinct advantage in the coming weeks. It hasn’t been official, but they’ve been campaigning all along.

Just for fun: voter turnout will be 16.3%

Rob LeForte is a former two-term DSU Executive. He wrote this on a Friday night.

Mike's second attempt at cracking the DSU Executive yielded more fruitful results.

CANDIDATES!

Feeling like your class talks are going poorly? Not getting the reception you’d hoped for in Meal Halls? Frustrated only 491 people have joined your facebook group? Well don’t worry. Even if you don’t win this election there will be other opportunities to take a leadership role at Dal and in the Student Union! I present you with the platform and profile of a much younger, hairier (debatable) Michael “Fendi” Kovendi. This virile, athletic man was once a young upstart. Just like you he yearned for the power to effect positive change in our Student Union. He toiled through an election campaign (partially) in an attempt to win office. His first attempt was not successful, but look at him now! Our current Vice-President Finance and Operations now has the same opportunities to change things that he wanted to see done in 2003 (Yes, the year R Kelly dropped “Ignition”). He was so excited to fix the things that were broken… he wanted to fix communication twice.

At first glance it looks like your typical candidate poster, but this glimpse into our storied past takes me back to 2006 when I came to campus. Since then, many of the issues this brave warrior of democracy championed have been accomplished or, at the very least, initiated.

Secure more areas to put banners and billboards around campus. - Realized through the initiation of joint DSU/Student Services buzzboards. The problem was addressed, but the method appears now to be minimally effective.

Open air pub in the quad for returning students during Orientation Week – Dalfest has implemented an tented beer tent in the quad with bands performing since 2007.

Redesign spaces in the SUB to make them more available for students to chill - Anyone remember when Starbucks was where Tim’s is, and Tim’s was where Just Us! is, and the area around the side was drab and uninviting? Throw in a fireplace and a big mirror and some leather chairs and you basically have to reserve a table.

Student initiative to make Wickwire field an indoor, year round, facility. – Look no further than some drafts of the Campus Master Plan.

Spring-Fling, carnival type festival in the fall semester. – Fall Fest was implemented at least as far back as 2007, and now the university has launched Homecoming again.

The message here is a simple one. Things do get done at the DSU. Some challenges will always remain, we can’t measure engagement well at this point. The fact is, tangible initiatives that are good ideas get carried out beyond the campaign. Even if a candidate doesn’t win there is always a chance someone else will love their ideas and that means that everyone running is making a significant contribution to the DSU by putting forth ideas. And hey, even if you don’t win this year…. maybe we’ll see you when you’re 26. Sorry, Kovendi.

I have been a culprit of using facebook for campaigning in the past. I always made a it a point to include all my information in the about section, and I primarily focused on generating traffic to my website when I was a candidate. I found the site to be immensely useful and think that campaigns on the whole benefitted from making a facebook presence a pillar of their awareness efforts. It was especially beneficial when you could send a message to the few hundreds members in your group reminding them to vote on the last day of the campaign and give the group meaningful updates.

While I have heard in the past that campaigning can be an annoyance online. I usually heard these comments in the waning days of the campaign period, when insiders had agreed to be part of the facebook group of many candidates.

Things appear to have changed. Facebook has recently changed it’s rules for joining troupe and being notified of the activities of the group. I opened my facebook this evening to 42 notifications. Many of these were regarding multiple comments, likes, or actions of group creators posting thoughts, ideas, and platform pillars. I have heard more individuals than in any election past say that the facebook assault has become an annoyance, and this is only day one. I will watch patiently to see if it dies down or proliferates rapidly as anxiety mounts and candidates are confronted by the eleventh hour.

I feel that this has the potential to engage more; people can’t simply ignore the facebook invitations to groups. I also feel that for students on the margins of engagement we may see a backlash due to the incessant updates. What does everyone think about is? Are we enterring an era where engaging students is as easy as adding them to a conversation, or have Elections candidates become the equivalent of online telemarketers? Which one of them will start trying to sell me viagra first?

I received word yesterday that sitting VP Student Life Hannah Dahn had decided to withdraw from the race, thus ending her re-election bid.  She has forwarded her intention to withdrawal along to the CRO.  The wording of her withdrawal is as follows:

“After much thought and reflection, I have taken a step back and decided that it is not in my best interest to run again for VPSL. Although it had been my plan for some time, I have realized that it is no longer how I wish to spend my time next year. There are other opportunities that I would prefer to pursue next year. I have had a great time at the DSU this past year and have learned more than I ever thought possible from the amazing people here. I wish all the candidates in all the races the best of luck!”

With no indication as to the events or happenings which precipitated the decision, I can only speculate on the cause.  I know that Hannah has her sights set on Medical School and may be taking time to prepare herself for that undertaking. Although I can’t be sure about her decision, one thing is certain: Shit just got real in the VPSL Race.