Here are my endorsements for the election. I’m trying to have be brief in my explanations. I do have a qualm with this election- namely, there are no candidates that really stand out, or that are particularly wonderful. So overall I find these elections sort of disappointing, but I do feel like there could be a really good exec next year. If only we could combine candidates into a supercandidate…


My first choice is Blake Frederick, my second Alex Monegro, and my third Paul Korczyk. I feel like Blake has a stronger platform that covers more issues and lays out concrete ways in which to address them. He also has more experience in the AMS than do either of the other candidates, which means that he’ll know how to work within the constraints of the AMS and won’t have to spend as much time learning the ropes. Alex is my next choice. His platform isn’t quite as in-depth, but I think he has a fair understanding of some issues.

VP Academic and University Affairs Candidates
My endorsement for this one is Johannes. While none of the candidates really stand out for me in this election, I feel like he has the best grasp of the issues and seems to be the best for the job. His platform addresses things like first year education, and lays out ways in which tutorials and labs can be improved, partially by addressing TA teaching reforms. Other candidates do have decent platforms as well, but has particular weaknesses. Jeremy withdrew and re-entered the competition, which makes me doubt his motivation to really do a good job, although I do like his platform and dedication to his cause. Sonia has a good platform, but doesn’t work well on a team as was evidenced last year in SUS, and I’m not convinced that she’d really push the points of her platform through (plus, there are very good reasons for why we shouldn’t allow people to retake courses they do poorly in, among them things like space limitations- the university shouldn’t pander to people who are trying to get into med school, and chances are that students will do better the second time around simply based on regression towards the mean). She’s enthusiastic, but doesn’t know how things work, and I feel her platform points are generally unattainable. It sounds nice on paper, though. David Nogas also has good ideas, but I’m not sure how effective he would be in implementing them. So I feel that Johannes has the greatest number of strengths, despite his lack of experience.

VP External

I don’t particularly like either of these candidates- I’m sure they’re great people, but I don’t think either of them would be particularly great. That said, I’m voting for Tim Chu. I feel that equity is important, I feel he has more experience, and I feel that he would be better at negotating, partly because he has more tact and is less abrasive, unlike Iggy, who insulted people he would work with, and who I don’t feel would be a good team player as a result. He also doesn’t seem to care much for equity, which is problematic if he has the one to work on it. Kudos to Tim’s team for running a good campaign, as well. I do wish he’d focus on more things than equity and lowering tuition (which I’m pretty sure won’t happen). But I feel that he has the ability to learn quickly and do a good job.

VP Administration

My pick is, surprisingly, Kommander Keg. He’s said some smart things in this election. Tristan comes in second- he has the most experience, but I feel that he doesn’t connect with students. As a SUS AMS rep, he never showed up to a single meeting, for instance, and I feel that that sort of thing reflects poorly. And I’m not sure how much I trust Knollies. Crystal lacks experience, and I feel doesn’t have as good of an understanding of issues as Tristan.

VP Finance
I don’t feel like either candidate is particularly stronger than the other. Ale has more experience, Tom seems to have a better understanding of issues. Ale has little business experience and wants to focus on things like building a new used bookstore, while Tom wants to focus more on supporting businesses and earning revenue that way. I feel he has a better grasp of what the position entails. I don’t feel particularly strongly, but I feel he has just a slight edge.

Board of Governors

My picks are Andrew Carne and Michael Duncan. Andrew really knows the issues, and Mike would be a good advocate for students. Both have experience with the AMS and know how the system works, which is good. I’m impressed by Andrew’s attending BoG meetings just for interest- it shows that it’s something he’s explored, taken interest in, and that he’s willing to take initiative to find out what things are about before doing them. Bijan I feel shot himself in the foot with the Farm statement, and I don’t really trust him to represent student interests as a result. In fact, I don’t trust him at all to represent students, given his most recent shenanigans. Blake would be fine, but I don’t feel he’s as good as the other candidates. The same goes for Tristan.

I’m going to look into the student legal fund society candidates, but that’s it for now!


Comments are disallowed for this post.

  1. Thanks, Maria!

    Posted by Bowinn | January 29, 2009, 1:30 pm
  2. Thanks for the support, Maria!

    Posted by Andrew Carne | January 29, 2009, 6:09 pm
  3. More on Bijan has been posted:


    Bijan did not attend today’s debate, and in the last one, argued strongly that he does not represent only students at the Board, but the community at large, including the administration, profs, staff, and the market housing ‘community’!! We should thank Mike Duncan for asking the question – video of this will be available tonight. He is elected by students, but does not feel he only represents them – it explains his vote in favor for the bus loop, which was very disappointing, to paraphrase Blake Frederick today at the BoG debate.

    Posted by Rodrigo Ferrari Nunes | January 29, 2009, 6:21 pm
  4. Withdrawing from and subsequently re-entering the race shouldn’t be seen as necessarily a lack of committment.

    It’s really hard running in an election like this. It’s personally demanding – emotionally, physically and psychologically.

    It’s natural to have doubts about yourself, espeically when you are being publically scrutinized around every corner. Gaining thicker skin takes time, but its also good that public figures care about how the public sees them.

    And AMS elections tend to be both personal and aggressive – and the campus media plays no small part in creating that atmosphere.

    Posted by Brendon | January 29, 2009, 8:31 pm
  5. This is true- I would agree. I’ve tried my hardest to not attack candidates personally. I have met a lot of them, and they’re all nice people. I think Jeremy would do fine in the position- not voting for him isn’t something that only has to do with his withdrawing from the competition, but from also feeling like some of his platform points are not totally related to an academic position. I think he would make a great VP Ex candidate, but alas he is not in that race.

    Posted by Maria_Jogova | January 29, 2009, 8:37 pm
Please vote for us in the Continuous VoterMedia Contest