Tyler Boswell is vice-president (internal) of the Carleton Academic Student Government (CASG), and says CUSA needs to get rid of its slate system and equalize opportunities for individual candidates.

The slate system is unfair to independent candidates. Carleton University Students’ Association (CUSA) elections need to improve sustainability and cast aside the slate system.

Currently, bylaws allow a slate to share resources. A full slate can share promotional material, advertising, and other expenses with a budget of $3,600 shared among a maximum of six candidates on each slate. This is compared to an independent candidate that has to do everything within $600.

The University of Toronto Students’ Union (UTSU) has banned slates to encourage more independent candidates and a more diverse group of people, said the UTSU president. UTSU’s former president added that the slate system is insular around circles of friends who “recruit their buddies,” according to UTSIU meeting minutes. Can I get an amen?

You can argue a slate has a “defined vision” and “can hit the ground running,” but if six independents can’t spend January to May creating a plan to work together towards a common goal, then chances are we have bigger problems.

Besides, a team with no opposition or conflict doesn’t grow and doesn’t learn anything. When you expand past friend groups, you can hear more voices and better represent the students. Secondly, what university students do you know that just have $600 lying around to run in an election with no guarantee of winning? Not that many.

When you put a price tag that high on running, you immediately eliminate a huge group of students with great ideas. CUSA reimburses all candidates regardless of success 50 per cent, meaning you pay $300 out of pocket. But $300 is still a lot and for many students, which would mean sacrificing a month’s worth of food for the election. Plus, reimbursement only comes after the fact. Scrimping together that initial $600 would be challenging for most students.

To create a more open and accessible election means levelling the playing field and reducing the maximum spending to $200 to $300 for executives and $50 to $100 for councillors.

I would encourage candidates to walk the talk with sustainability. You can’t preach sustainability then print 4,000 pieces of literature that will litter the ground for months to come, or make t-shirts that will be lost or thrown away. If you try and tell me that printing material is the only way to reach students, my response to you is “ok, boomer.”

You’re seriously going to say that students will only vote for you if they get a piece of paper? Have you heard of social media or QR codes? Get creative. According to election result numbers, 70 per cent of students don’t vote in CUSA elections, which is arguably the most popular student election on campus.

Keep in mind, you’re targeting a very narrow group of engaged voters who will most likely seek you out anyways, provided they’re not already voting for you because they know you. Overall, the less resources used, the better.

As someone who has both evaded candidates and has been a candidate asking for your vote, I’m familiar with all this. In my own campaigns, whether it was with the Board of Governors, Senate, or the Carleton Academic Student Government, I’ve tried to commit to sustainability. I had printed a very limited amount of paper and have since committed to any future campaigns as carbon neutral, and almost exclusively digital.

I commend students that put their name on a ballot. Not only do you put yourself out to the world, but you also sacrifice your monthly budget, all in an attempt to better the campus.

But I often find that once you enter student politics, you can quickly disengage with your base of people that helped put you there. This is something I don’t exempt myself from and try to remind myself frequently. So in the election season to come, let’s all be kind to each other, think critically of platform points and commit to sustainability.

Featured image by Sarah Sibley.