Today I learned from a friend in the sciences that the slate has been going around telling people to vote for them because all of the independents are against e-voting. This may sound mundane, but it’s troubling on many levels. Bear with me as I unpack this.

1. The independents are not a coherent group. Oddly enough, independent candidates are well… independent. This means that some are in favour of e-voting, some are in favour of accessible voting, and some haven’t taken a clear position on this issue. Even within the sub-group that agrees on something called “accessible voting”, what this means can vary wildly. Personally, I’m in favour of revisiting the recommendations of the elections bylaws committee report. This report has been buried, intentionally or not. Everyone keeps talking about e-voting and accessible voting as if research and recommendations do not already exist. Let’s not reinvent the wheel.

2. The executive doesn’t have the power to make this decision. This is why I’ve personally not declared myself as having one position or another before now. A notice of motion was given at the AGM for the creation of an E-Voting Implementation Working Group. Now, I think such a working group might be a bit premature, but I’m quite happy that this notice of motion was given. This means that we get to have a discussion about the pros and cons of e-voting. The decision should and will be made at the membership level. If I’m elected, my role would be to help with the implementation of whatever the membership decides, regardless of whether or not I agree with it. The fact that we’re discussing this as if the outcome of these elections will have any bearing on this decision shows how far we’ve gone down the road of top-down decision-making.

3. Blatant lying is not an adequate campaign strategy. I know that in mainstream politics, making campaign promises that no one intends to keep is common practice, but do we really want to go down that road? The slate is well aware that not all of the independents are against e-voting, yet they are still spreading that narrative. They are also, one would hope, aware that the decision on e-voting does not rest with the executive, yet their discourse is promising that they’ll achieve exactly that. You may recall last year’s slate campaigning strategy was to promise not to go on strike. That was another promise they couldn’t keep, since the decision was never theirs to begin with. Can’t we all make a campaign promise to stop with the dishonest campaign promises?

4. This discourse reinforces the perception of a two-sided union. People like dichotomies, I know. They’re so much cleaner than this weird political mess we find ourselves in. But a discourse of two dominant sides doesn’t have to be true to be incredibly damaging. If the perception is that there are two well-defined sides that are competing to run this local, where does that leave everyone else? Most people don’t have a “side”, and instead find themselves shut out from union spaces. The slate may have started it by running as a party, but I think it is the responsibility of the independent candidates to be independent in more than name. Right now, it often feels like belonging to one side or another is a requisite to getting involved. This needs to stop. We can argue, we can fight, we can unite over things in common, but let’s not forget that there’s no room for party politics in a union of 3700 members. An executive composed of different people with different views and different political affiliations means that there is greater access to union spaces for all members.

There are two days left to vote! All reports indicate a pretty low turn-out so far. Please consider taking the time to cast your vote. I’ve been hearing a lot lately about people feeling disenfranchised and demobilized. I hear that, I really do. It’s my hope that the results of this election will mean the start of a concerted effort to reclaim union spaces for all members.