Two apparent slates in UNA elections

Slates and informal alliances are nothing new in UNA elections. Both times I ran I did so in collaboration with others. One thing that seems a bit different this time is that the 'slates' are not directly evident or explicit.

The two apparent slates are: Cheng, Glasheim, and Liu (CGL).  They have combined to form a facebook 'community discussion page' called UBC Neighbours.  At least on of them (Fei Liu) is directly mentioning them in their campaign literature.  The other slate consists of the AMS student society slate: Co, Gan, Ngieng, and Proust (AMS). They do not appear to be mentioning each other (at this time) in their campaign materials, but instead have the AMS using its official communications networks to campaign for them. 

The resident slate of CGL represents a typical informal alliance between candidates who realize there may be some benefit in combining efforts. However, because they all come from the same local area this might not be the best tactical alliance for their electoral success. With the UNA's no more than three per local area rule a combine of candidates from the same local area will only be truly advantageous if the CGL Slate ask voters to only vote for their three candidates - and there is no evidence of that taking place.

The AMS slate is a new intervention in UNA electoral politics. The AMS fought hard to retain their appointed (undemocratic) voting director on the UNA Board and with the recent bylaw changes lost that particular struggle. The appearance of four candidates (from three different local areas) being backed by the AMS in this election is a politically astute tactical approach, on the part of the AMS,  to overcome the loss of their appointed seat.  Their campaign approach is also carefully targeted and specifically aimed at studnets connected to the AMS political communications network.  The several campaign bursts don't specifically say vote only AMS Slate. However the implication is strong: these are the AMS's "UNA student candidates" the advertisements proclaim. Given the AMS candidates are spread across three local areas their chances are strong to elect at least two, if not three, candidates. This is especially likely if a strong core (perhaps as little as 75 voters) vote only AMS Slate. Also of note is that the AMS Slate appears to be focussing on getting studnets living in the UNA to sign up for membership and vote - if that works it will give them an even stronger potential.

There may likely be other informal alliances in play - it is hard to tell. There will be some of the network effect where people who know a candidate might ask them for suggestions.  Then there are the circles of people who have faithfully followed UNA issues, are engaged in core activities, and neighbours of current directors etc.  Each of the incumbents will have their own particular networks and the most successful of them may well not need to campaign as actively and obviously as those trying to break into the game.

To a certain extent the new bylaws, by lengthening terms and electing all directors at the same time, have reduced the democratic effectiveness of the UNA and at the same time made the need to electoral slates more pressing.  Previously elections were every year  only electing half the Directors at a time - terms were shorter as well. This made certain that UNA Directors had to maintain direct contact with their respective electorates. With lengthening terms and running all elections at the same time we may gain on cost efficiencies but we lose a little on accountability and slates may become more the normal. But then, who knows? It's easier to retroactively predict what happened, then it is to accurately predict what will happen!  ;)