Today is election day, and it’s come to my attention that many out there have decided not to vote.
In the interest of attempting not to be too “preachy”, below I have given a list of excuses I’ve heard today, and the reasons why I qualify the argument as an “excuse.”
“My vote doesn’t count.”
Negative, my friend. Here at Laurier, we struggle to meet quorum on a yearly basis, therefore your vote and everybody else’s counts. Last year, about 12 per cent of the student population voted. I let this excuse fly with a cringe during a federal election, when an individual is perhaps one in one million eligible voters, but not here when last year board of director Jordan Hyde was elected by just one vote. He is now among the strongest personalities in the boardroom.
“I’m in my last year – what do I care?”
You should care for every first year who doesn’t understand what this week and today is all about. Let’s face it, it’s hard to get a handle on our students’ union and it’s functions. So now that you’re a veteran who probably has gotten a handle on the issues, and maybe even knows the candidates or has been in class with them, you should be getting out to vote. Even if in your four (or five if you’ve hung around) years here, if all you’ve done is figure out what WLUSU president is, vote for those who have only been here for five months.
“All the candidates are stupid. Iate the institution!”
Thanks for your critical eye, most of us have one too, but we realize nothing and nobody is perfect. Why not just vote for a BOD candidate? (You have 21 to choose from, and who in their right mind hates Michael Onabolu?) Support the fact that some students want to be involved in WLUSU and despite its flaws, the union gives countless leadership and advocacy opportunities. If you want to be so critical, then why not engage in the process and even take it a step further and run for a position? Then you’d waste your time in the boardroom discussing issues and speaking up for a number of students that disagree with what the union does, rather than wasting it on not voting.
In short, these excuses are just that – excuses. I understand not everyone supports the union or think they can make a difference, but this kind of issue goes back to every election at all levels of government, whether it be national or student. If you don’t like the institution, maybe it’s you who should be up there running the enact change. If you feel like your vote doesn’t matter, talk to Hyde. And if you’re just too lazy to get off your couch – well I can’t help you there.
And maybe if you don’t care what I think, take someone else’s advice:
“Act as if what you do makes a difference. It does.” – William Jones
“Unless someone like you cares an awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not.” – Dr. Seuss
“I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what I can do.” – Edward Everett Hale
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
The value of an endorsement
Today The Cord released it's annual endorsements for tomorrow's election.
This year we took a slightly different approach and I made the decision that as a newspaper we would endorse one candidate for president, as opposed to the previous five-personal panel we typically have.
This decision was made for several reasons including that very few people on my editorial board have experience covering WLUSU or a deep interest in student politics. People outside of the paper were also asked to give endorsements and when they declined I decided that offering a Cord endorsement was an appropriate choice.
Following the open forum as an editorial board we sat down and discussed this for over an hour. Prior to Tuesday afternoon we did not know which way we were going to go. Kory and Kyle consistently performed well over the election period and either of them would be deserving of our backing.
We could have taken the easy way out. Based on the positives both candidates have we could have published five endorsements: three for Kyle and two for Kory (Kyle had the overwhelming support in the end) and we wouldn't be coming under such harsh criticism.
However, as a newspaper our job is to interpret the facts and form opinions and in this case we came to the opinion that Kyle is the better candidate. Many people are torn between Kory and Kyle in this election and I feel that it is our responsibility as a newspaper to offer them insight into who we feel would make a better president.
Newspapers do this all of the time, including The Globe and Mail's 2008 endorsement of Stephen Harper, and The New York Times endorsement of Barack Obama.
The criticism we have received for doing something daily papers do all of the time seems to be yet another example of people not recognizing the importance and value of an independent media source on campus.
Laura Carlson
Editor-in-Chief
This year we took a slightly different approach and I made the decision that as a newspaper we would endorse one candidate for president, as opposed to the previous five-personal panel we typically have.
This decision was made for several reasons including that very few people on my editorial board have experience covering WLUSU or a deep interest in student politics. People outside of the paper were also asked to give endorsements and when they declined I decided that offering a Cord endorsement was an appropriate choice.
Following the open forum as an editorial board we sat down and discussed this for over an hour. Prior to Tuesday afternoon we did not know which way we were going to go. Kory and Kyle consistently performed well over the election period and either of them would be deserving of our backing.
We could have taken the easy way out. Based on the positives both candidates have we could have published five endorsements: three for Kyle and two for Kory (Kyle had the overwhelming support in the end) and we wouldn't be coming under such harsh criticism.
However, as a newspaper our job is to interpret the facts and form opinions and in this case we came to the opinion that Kyle is the better candidate. Many people are torn between Kory and Kyle in this election and I feel that it is our responsibility as a newspaper to offer them insight into who we feel would make a better president.
Newspapers do this all of the time, including The Globe and Mail's 2008 endorsement of Stephen Harper, and The New York Times endorsement of Barack Obama.
The criticism we have received for doing something daily papers do all of the time seems to be yet another example of people not recognizing the importance and value of an independent media source on campus.
Laura Carlson
Editor-in-Chief
Monday, February 1, 2010
A successful debate focused on issues
When the rules of cordial debate were set out at last night’s WLUSU presidential candidate roundtable, I was unsure that any of the presidential candidates would get into enough discussion to make the room’s atmosphere heated.
But it did – there could have been well over the two hours of discussion that we had allotted for.
Though dialogue it did get passionate at times, especially surrounding issues that the candidates had a personal or professional attachment to, at no point did debate get personal or unprofessional.
At times, candidates were candid in saying that they were offended or distraught over the allegations of their peers at the table, but with rebuttals allowed the free flow of discussion, as all parties had a chance to bring their concerns to the table.
This surprised me.
I assumed that either no one would have anything to say, or discussion would get personal and candidates would shut down as they got offended.
But instead, the hard-hitting topics of campus clubs, the possibility of a strike next year and the issue of keeping Laurier’s “small school” feel amongst a growing population sparked interesting rhetoric.
All candidates expressed their excitement at the prospect of bringing issues to the forefront of the election – an election few students participate in.
When all was said and done, what the candidates had in mind and expressed in their closing statements was the same. Whether they disagree with each others’ platforms or not, the candidates came out and discussed in order to increase awareness and hopefully spark some student involvement.
No matter where they stood on the issues, at the end of the day they shook hands like gentlemen, which is always admirable.
Click here to watch a recording of last nights debate.
Alanna Wallace
In Depth Editor
But it did – there could have been well over the two hours of discussion that we had allotted for.
Though dialogue it did get passionate at times, especially surrounding issues that the candidates had a personal or professional attachment to, at no point did debate get personal or unprofessional.
At times, candidates were candid in saying that they were offended or distraught over the allegations of their peers at the table, but with rebuttals allowed the free flow of discussion, as all parties had a chance to bring their concerns to the table.
This surprised me.
I assumed that either no one would have anything to say, or discussion would get personal and candidates would shut down as they got offended.
But instead, the hard-hitting topics of campus clubs, the possibility of a strike next year and the issue of keeping Laurier’s “small school” feel amongst a growing population sparked interesting rhetoric.
All candidates expressed their excitement at the prospect of bringing issues to the forefront of the election – an election few students participate in.
When all was said and done, what the candidates had in mind and expressed in their closing statements was the same. Whether they disagree with each others’ platforms or not, the candidates came out and discussed in order to increase awareness and hopefully spark some student involvement.
No matter where they stood on the issues, at the end of the day they shook hands like gentlemen, which is always admirable.
Click here to watch a recording of last nights debate.
Alanna Wallace
In Depth Editor
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Tonight's debate
Make sure to watch the first ever Cord presidential debate tonight at 8 p.m.
It will have a similar format to the Canadian leadership debate during the last federal election.
You can stream it at thecord.ca/wlusuelection.
It will have a similar format to the Canadian leadership debate during the last federal election.
You can stream it at thecord.ca/wlusuelection.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Presidents aren’t as powerful as you think
An editorial I wrote last year regarding the impossibility of many presidential campaign promises.
Presidential campaigning for tomorrow’s election has been underway for two weeks now.
Posters are plastered across campus. Candidates and their teams roam the halls and try to convince you why they will make the best Wilfrid Laurier University Students’ Union (WLUSU) president for the 2009-2010 academic year.
Despite all the candidates’ campaign efforts and platform initiatives, it’s unlikely that anyone who gets elected will actually be the type of president they aim to be.
“You want better food in the Dining Hall? I’ll see what I can do.” “You don’t like the lighting in the Science Building? I’ll look into that.” “Tuition is too high? Let’s just eliminate it altogether.”
WLUSU candidates make empty promises like these every year.
Those running are likely to say whatever they can to get the vote, but when it actually comes to upholding these promises and accomplishing something significant in their term, the chances are much less likely.
Presidents don’t typically run for re-election, so there’s little incentive for them to actually keep the students in mind throughout their presidential term. It’s much easier to operate status quo and appease those with whom they work on a daily basis.
WLUSU has close ties with the university’s administration and, unfortunately, admin and staff within WLUSU have a significant impact on the decisions the president makes.
The students’ union follows a strategic plan so it’s unlikely that any one person would actually set it off course.
Traditionally, when the union or WLU administration is unhappy about something, they sit down and negotiate, and an incoming president likely won’t alter that relationship.
WLUSU lacks advocacy on behalf of the student body, meaning that the president rarely “provides for the needs of students,” as the union’s mandate suggests they should.
Unless you follow WLUSU politics very closely, it’s hard to see a tangible thing that a president has done recently that has been good for Laurier students.
Bringing back the Hawk certainly doesn’t count in my eyes.
All presidents – including those in whom I had great confidence when they stepped into office – have made decisions that I don’t feel have been in the best interest of the student body.
This year, for instance, WLUSU president Colin Le Fevre decided to ban underagers from the Turret and to cut the campus radio station.
Clearly, whoever is elected tomorrow is in an important position, though it’s likely that once they get into office they will forget the promises they made to students and lose sight of the mandate they ran on.
American political scientist Henry Kissinger once said, “University politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small.” He must have been describing the WLUSU presidential position when he said that.
While the campaign season hasn’t been particularly vicious this year, like every other year there have been plenty of campaign promises made that are unlikely to be met, no matter who wins in tomorrow’s election.
Candidates will tell you that they’ll always put the students first, but when working under the constraints of WLUSU, this rarely happens.
Laura Carlson
Editor-in-Chief
Presidential campaigning for tomorrow’s election has been underway for two weeks now.
Posters are plastered across campus. Candidates and their teams roam the halls and try to convince you why they will make the best Wilfrid Laurier University Students’ Union (WLUSU) president for the 2009-2010 academic year.
Despite all the candidates’ campaign efforts and platform initiatives, it’s unlikely that anyone who gets elected will actually be the type of president they aim to be.
“You want better food in the Dining Hall? I’ll see what I can do.” “You don’t like the lighting in the Science Building? I’ll look into that.” “Tuition is too high? Let’s just eliminate it altogether.”
WLUSU candidates make empty promises like these every year.
Those running are likely to say whatever they can to get the vote, but when it actually comes to upholding these promises and accomplishing something significant in their term, the chances are much less likely.
Presidents don’t typically run for re-election, so there’s little incentive for them to actually keep the students in mind throughout their presidential term. It’s much easier to operate status quo and appease those with whom they work on a daily basis.
WLUSU has close ties with the university’s administration and, unfortunately, admin and staff within WLUSU have a significant impact on the decisions the president makes.
The students’ union follows a strategic plan so it’s unlikely that any one person would actually set it off course.
Traditionally, when the union or WLU administration is unhappy about something, they sit down and negotiate, and an incoming president likely won’t alter that relationship.
WLUSU lacks advocacy on behalf of the student body, meaning that the president rarely “provides for the needs of students,” as the union’s mandate suggests they should.
Unless you follow WLUSU politics very closely, it’s hard to see a tangible thing that a president has done recently that has been good for Laurier students.
Bringing back the Hawk certainly doesn’t count in my eyes.
All presidents – including those in whom I had great confidence when they stepped into office – have made decisions that I don’t feel have been in the best interest of the student body.
This year, for instance, WLUSU president Colin Le Fevre decided to ban underagers from the Turret and to cut the campus radio station.
Clearly, whoever is elected tomorrow is in an important position, though it’s likely that once they get into office they will forget the promises they made to students and lose sight of the mandate they ran on.
American political scientist Henry Kissinger once said, “University politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small.” He must have been describing the WLUSU presidential position when he said that.
While the campaign season hasn’t been particularly vicious this year, like every other year there have been plenty of campaign promises made that are unlikely to be met, no matter who wins in tomorrow’s election.
Candidates will tell you that they’ll always put the students first, but when working under the constraints of WLUSU, this rarely happens.
Laura Carlson
Editor-in-Chief
Friday, January 29, 2010
Unsigned editorial
If you didn't get a chance to pick up a copy of The Cord this week be sure to read Wednesday's unsigned editorial: "No female candidates in WLUSU election."
There are now two female candidates running for board of director positions, but this number is still proportionality low considering Laurier is 60 per cent female.
Add to the discourse by commenting at thecord.ca
There are now two female candidates running for board of director positions, but this number is still proportionality low considering Laurier is 60 per cent female.
Add to the discourse by commenting at thecord.ca
Thursday, January 28, 2010
I'm voting for him because he's hot'
Every student has their own criteria when it comes to who to vote for in the students’ union election. Whether it be material spending, promises of increased business operations and student representation, or simply because a certain candidate is the most attractive.
Previously, I must admit that my voting tendencies often swayed towards the latter, what can I say, I’m a sucker for good looks.
However, this year I am gaining a new perspective on voting. As news editor, I am conducting presidential interviews with each candidate, as well as covering events leading up to the election. This has certainly given me new insight into the voting process.
Immersing yourself into an election race is a good way to ensure that you cover all of your bases when it comes to choosing your best candidate, as I have cleverly discovered this year.
Opportunities such as Sunday’s debate and Tuesday’s open forum are excellent chances to question the candidates on issues you find are important.
Once you begin, it’s impossible not to become caught up in the hype and actually begin following a candidates’ progress on the campaign trail.
It doesn’t matter what your motives are for voting, there is always a candidate you will be able to relate to more than others. Whether you’re voting because you care about politics, or because you want LCD TV’s in buildings other than the Schlegal Building or simply because you had desirable dreams about one of the candidates, you should still go out and vote.
Lauren Millet
News Editor
Previously, I must admit that my voting tendencies often swayed towards the latter, what can I say, I’m a sucker for good looks.
However, this year I am gaining a new perspective on voting. As news editor, I am conducting presidential interviews with each candidate, as well as covering events leading up to the election. This has certainly given me new insight into the voting process.
Immersing yourself into an election race is a good way to ensure that you cover all of your bases when it comes to choosing your best candidate, as I have cleverly discovered this year.
Opportunities such as Sunday’s debate and Tuesday’s open forum are excellent chances to question the candidates on issues you find are important.
Once you begin, it’s impossible not to become caught up in the hype and actually begin following a candidates’ progress on the campaign trail.
It doesn’t matter what your motives are for voting, there is always a candidate you will be able to relate to more than others. Whether you’re voting because you care about politics, or because you want LCD TV’s in buildings other than the Schlegal Building or simply because you had desirable dreams about one of the candidates, you should still go out and vote.
Lauren Millet
News Editor
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Annoyance will cost some candidates
If the staple of the Canadian political campaign is the attack ad, the fixture of the WLUSU presidential election this year is overexposure.
But does having your booth in the Hall of Fame blast music or blind passers-by with your colour really make students vote for you? Do you think harassing bar-goes in front of WIlf’s is going to get them to go to the polls on Feb. 4?
Visibility on campus as a candidate is important – but Laurier students have already begun to express their annoyance with campaigners’ booths and their zealous campaigning strategies.
Candidates’ main tactic seems to be simply being visible – and in what many are deeming anyone’s race, having everyone know that you’re colour is blue, orange, purple or yellow and that you occupied the Hall of Fame for two weeks isn’t enough to get you elected.
Any time I’ve walked by, only acquaintances have spoken to me, and definitely not about the candidate they’re supporting.
Instead, all I’ve seen are booths full of volunteers eagerly representing their chosen candidates by simply standing there wearing their t-shirts or bobbing to music from an iPod dock. Sure, they have enthusiasm, but none of it screams that their candidate is better than the one whose both is across the hall.
So volunteers – if you really want to get the student body to vote for your choice for WLUSU president, you better step it up.
Either start telling passers-by about your candidate’s platform, or move over, because you’re forcing them (and me) to walk on The Hawk.
Alanna Wallace
In Depth Editor
But does having your booth in the Hall of Fame blast music or blind passers-by with your colour really make students vote for you? Do you think harassing bar-goes in front of WIlf’s is going to get them to go to the polls on Feb. 4?
Visibility on campus as a candidate is important – but Laurier students have already begun to express their annoyance with campaigners’ booths and their zealous campaigning strategies.
Candidates’ main tactic seems to be simply being visible – and in what many are deeming anyone’s race, having everyone know that you’re colour is blue, orange, purple or yellow and that you occupied the Hall of Fame for two weeks isn’t enough to get you elected.
Any time I’ve walked by, only acquaintances have spoken to me, and definitely not about the candidate they’re supporting.
Instead, all I’ve seen are booths full of volunteers eagerly representing their chosen candidates by simply standing there wearing their t-shirts or bobbing to music from an iPod dock. Sure, they have enthusiasm, but none of it screams that their candidate is better than the one whose both is across the hall.
So volunteers – if you really want to get the student body to vote for your choice for WLUSU president, you better step it up.
Either start telling passers-by about your candidate’s platform, or move over, because you’re forcing them (and me) to walk on The Hawk.
Alanna Wallace
In Depth Editor
Monday, January 25, 2010
A lack of board candidates, again
For the second year in a row (and the third time in four years), when the nomination period came to an end, there were not enough candidates to fill the 15 seats for the Wilfrid Laurier University Students’ Union board of directors.
This is problematic, considering the board is supposed to be the representational voice of all undergraduate students at Laurier.
Directors are the ones who are supposed to stand up for our rights as students, monitor the president, question management, and ensure that the union is being fiscally responsible.
Although it is easy to blame Laurier students for being apathetic, the consistent lack of interest in the director position brings up the question of why being a student director has become such an undesirable job.
Having been on the panel that has conducted The Cord’s annual board reviews for the past three years, and having attended nearly every bi-weekly board meeting during this time I have seen first hand just how frustrating the board can be.
While every board has strong directors, when April rolls around we say goodbye to another forgettable year in WLUSU politics.
An interesting comment was left on thecord.ca in the response to these years’ board reviews:
"As one of the four life members of WLUSU and Board Member in 74 to 76, I read you report card article with interest. Brought back many memories of my days at WLU with the most striking aspect being that it may be 34 years since I was on the WLUSU board but all you have to do is change the pictures and names noted in the article and you would have the 74-76 boards. Times change but things do not really change that much Harry Hartfiel Student # H16133"
Apparently this lack of student engagement at the board level is not a recent trend.
While each board has unique chemistry, consistently they fail to get much accomplished, which is frustrating not only for students but for directors themselves.
Interestingly enough it tends to be the strongest directors that become disillusioned with the board and the students’ union in particular.
Too often directors feel that they are getting nothing done in their term, and after a year of openly criticize the board, frustrating meetings and little to show for their time, they leave WLUSU to pursue other areas of involvement at Laurier.
WLUSU needs to ask why so few directors want to return to their role (this year only four are up for re-election despite the fact that a vast majority of director’s are returning students next year) and why so few students actually want this job?
If the role of director has become so undesirable WLUSU needs to look at why.
If the structure of the union sets up the board and director’s to fail than it seems it is time for WLUSU to consider changing both the election process, the role of the board, and perhaps even the structure of the entire governance system.
Laura Carlson
Editor-in-Chief
This is problematic, considering the board is supposed to be the representational voice of all undergraduate students at Laurier.
Directors are the ones who are supposed to stand up for our rights as students, monitor the president, question management, and ensure that the union is being fiscally responsible.
Although it is easy to blame Laurier students for being apathetic, the consistent lack of interest in the director position brings up the question of why being a student director has become such an undesirable job.
Having been on the panel that has conducted The Cord’s annual board reviews for the past three years, and having attended nearly every bi-weekly board meeting during this time I have seen first hand just how frustrating the board can be.
While every board has strong directors, when April rolls around we say goodbye to another forgettable year in WLUSU politics.
An interesting comment was left on thecord.ca in the response to these years’ board reviews:
"As one of the four life members of WLUSU and Board Member in 74 to 76, I read you report card article with interest. Brought back many memories of my days at WLU with the most striking aspect being that it may be 34 years since I was on the WLUSU board but all you have to do is change the pictures and names noted in the article and you would have the 74-76 boards. Times change but things do not really change that much Harry Hartfiel Student # H16133"
Apparently this lack of student engagement at the board level is not a recent trend.
While each board has unique chemistry, consistently they fail to get much accomplished, which is frustrating not only for students but for directors themselves.
Interestingly enough it tends to be the strongest directors that become disillusioned with the board and the students’ union in particular.
Too often directors feel that they are getting nothing done in their term, and after a year of openly criticize the board, frustrating meetings and little to show for their time, they leave WLUSU to pursue other areas of involvement at Laurier.
WLUSU needs to ask why so few directors want to return to their role (this year only four are up for re-election despite the fact that a vast majority of director’s are returning students next year) and why so few students actually want this job?
If the role of director has become so undesirable WLUSU needs to look at why.
If the structure of the union sets up the board and director’s to fail than it seems it is time for WLUSU to consider changing both the election process, the role of the board, and perhaps even the structure of the entire governance system.
Laura Carlson
Editor-in-Chief
Friday, January 22, 2010
The Cord’s election coverage
This year The Cord will be taking a new approach to our coverage for the Wilfrid Laurier University Students’ Union elections, both in print and online.
Our coverage kicked off Wednesday with live streaming of the All Candidates Meeting (ACM) at http://thecord.ca/wlusuelection. This site will act as our new media hub throughout the election period. This year we will offer live streaming of the Open Forum (Tuesday Feb. 2), as well as Election Night itself (Thursday Feb. 4).
For the first time ever The Cord will be hosting a Presidential Debate, which will take place on Thursday, Jan. 28 at 9:00 p.m. All debates will be streamed live it at thecord.ca and there will be a viewing party in the 24 Lounge.
We will use other means of new media such as Facebook and Twitter (@cordnews) to update you with developments leading up to Election Day on Thursday Feb. 4.
In addition to this you can still expect to find extensive coverage in our weekly print edition. This week look for presidential platforms and developments about the re-opening of board nomination packages. On Feb. 3 we will publish a special election insert with sit down interviews with presidential candidates, coverage of the Open Forum and candidate endorsements among other things.
Laura Carlson
Editor-in-Chief
Our coverage kicked off Wednesday with live streaming of the All Candidates Meeting (ACM) at http://thecord.ca/wlusuelection. This site will act as our new media hub throughout the election period. This year we will offer live streaming of the Open Forum (Tuesday Feb. 2), as well as Election Night itself (Thursday Feb. 4).
For the first time ever The Cord will be hosting a Presidential Debate, which will take place on Thursday, Jan. 28 at 9:00 p.m. All debates will be streamed live it at thecord.ca and there will be a viewing party in the 24 Lounge.
We will use other means of new media such as Facebook and Twitter (@cordnews) to update you with developments leading up to Election Day on Thursday Feb. 4.
In addition to this you can still expect to find extensive coverage in our weekly print edition. This week look for presidential platforms and developments about the re-opening of board nomination packages. On Feb. 3 we will publish a special election insert with sit down interviews with presidential candidates, coverage of the Open Forum and candidate endorsements among other things.
Laura Carlson
Editor-in-Chief
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)