Jonny Chard | News Editor
Featured image: YFS elections saw 7,033 votes on average cast for executive positions. | Dina Hassan
The spring YFS elections have concluded with Student Action taking 16 out of 22 seats, including all five executive positions. Team ABC, this year’s opposition slate, managed to win six seats.
Rawan Habib, current VP campaigns and advocacy, will assume the position of president, having gained a total of 3,710 votes. Team ABC’s Priyank D’Sa came a close second with 3,033 votes. There were 307 spoiled votes.
Gunesh Sivanathan will become the new VP Campaigns and Advocacy, having gained 3,293 votes, only 282 votes ahead of ABC’s Arma Khan, who gained 3,011. Bloc Glendonois’ candidate, Alexander Sokol, earned 377 votes. Three hundred and fifty ballots were spoiled.
Matthew Comishen won the race to become VP Campus Life with 4,315 votes. Independent candidate Jermaine Cowie garnered 1,729 while Bloc Glendonois’ Liam Smith had 487 votes, one fewer than the number of spoiled ballots for the position.
Roshni Raveenthiran will take up the position of VP Equity having put up 3,481 votes, with ABC’s Kelly Brar coming second with 3,193. A total of 361 ballots were spoiled.
Mary Asekome, current VP operations, will re-assume the position, having gained 3,722 votes compared to ABC’s Abraham Alheyali, who tallied 2,993. Three hundred and sixteen ballots were spoiled.
The voter turnout was 13.3 per cent, with the average number of votes for executive positions standing at 7,033.
A spokesperson for Student Action states that campaigning went well and that they are pleased with the results.
“We are looking forward to working with members from Team ABC. We will make sure to listen and prioritize the needs of students on our campus,” reads their statement.
Tehila Colman, spokesperson for Team ABC, feels that their success in gaining six seats was due to the hard work of candidates and volunteers.
“Winning six seats on a YFS board usually dominated by a single party is a really incredible accomplishment,” she says.
“We are excited to work with all members on the YFS board to achieve results […] and to continue to advocate for the issues that matter to all students at York.”
Although many students are happy with the result, some feel a growing frustration with the current system.
Prior to the election, concerns were raised about the YFS due to a lack of updates about board discussions and decisions.
Although board meeting agendas are up-to-date, the last meeting minutes are from February 2016 and the last executive report is from October 2015.
With regards to the election, there have been no statements, press releases, social media posts or emails issued, something that has made the election difficult to report on.
Many have been left to discover results through private Facebook posts from candidates.
Transparency and communication are key for credibility. Every process needs to be openly scrutinized and verified according to procedure to make sure no irregularities occur.
Knowledge of the elections required students to be on campus and come across, stop and read every poster for every relevant position.
Although students can ask volunteers for further details, some find this a hassle and many feel intimidated due to the nature of competitive leafleting.
Hayllie Durette, a fourth-year visual arts student, feels that the style of campaigning that is administered risks dissuading students from voting.
“People walking in front of you and shoving papers in your face when you’re rushing to class made me not want to hear what they were saying,” she says.
For the student body to be truly engaged, informed and accurately represented in YFS elections, they also need to be told of opportunities to challenge candidates on their pledges.
Two debates at Glendon and Keele campuses, held on February 7 and 8, respectively, dropped under the radar with no obvious advertisement around campus or online, apart from a small photo on the YFS website.
Colman expresses, however, that any post or advertisement from the incumbent YFS may present a breach of election by-laws.
“Given that nearly all YFS board members belonged to a slate that was running again in this year’s election, any post made by the YFS […] could have been construed as a violation,” she says.
“The fact that the YFS itself did not post on social media or in email about the elections is admirable.”
One notable spectre that has reared its ugly head once again thanks to the low turnout is that of online voting. This follows last year’s unsuccessful motion to revert to an online system at the YFS annual general meeting.
With voting conducted by paper ballot at a select number of locations around campuses, questions have arisen to the accessibility of the current platform.
Ira Famarin, a first-year communication studies student, notes that for those living off-campus, or for those with no classes on voting days, paper ballots present an inconvenience.
“York can be really hectic sometimes. Online voting would prevent long queues and allow commuters like me to vote with the click of a mouse,” says Famarin.
Amanda Swick, a fourth-year visual arts student, believes an online system may also provide a more equal platform for candidates.
“The ability to compare platforms all in one place would be easier, quicker and more effective,” says Swick.
Famarin also feels that an online comparison tool may reduce complacency among students.
“It’s really easy to appeal to bias and just vote for the ‘popular’ one just because you don’t know much about the other candidates,” she says.
“Having an online platform […] would allow students to be more engaged and make informed choices.”
York has implemented online voting for a number of elections, such as the selection of student representatives by the Board of Governors, for the purpose of broadening accessibility.
Wilfrid Laurier University experienced a 158 per cent increase in turnout after introducing online voting in 2011. The University of Manitoba’s graduate student association and Queen’s University also witnessed an increase.
Online voting removes human error through a lengthy system of manually counting and verifying ballots, allowing for a faster release of results.
“It is unclear whether online balloting elicits a greater voter turnout or if it would encourage students to be more knowledgeable of the issues,” adds Colman.
“We believe that those who have won consistently on the current paper ballot system, rightfully, feel no impetus to change the way YFS board elections are operated.”
Another element of the election that has garnered opposition has been the amount of paper used for campaigning and voting.
York prides itself on being in the top 15 green university campuses in the world, and yet elections were conducted with leaflets, up to 7,900 posters, 48,425 ballots and their corresponding envelopes.
Although all campaign materials are constitutionally required to have the words “please recycle after the election” on them, many students wonder whether it would be more in line with York’s sustainability policy to simply minimize the need for paper in the first place.
Regardless of the questions raised, the majority of students are hopeful that the new YFS board will be a strong and fair voice for their concerns over the coming year.
Student Action, as the majority party, are immensely popular and many students see them as reliable in implementing the change they desire, regardless of the fact that two of their pledges were recycled from last year: menstrual equity and an online service for textbooks.
They have stated that they will ensure menstrual equity is fulfilled and that they are looking towards a similar campus-wide policy. They are also investigating how to implement a used textbook service.
It is hoped that the composition of the new YFS board will add a layer of consultation to proceedings and will help fuel constructive debate about student issues.
Elected candidates from Student Action and Team ABC will assume their positions in May.
