The following is a guest post by Bowinn Ma, EUS President 2007-2008; AMS Councilor 2006-2008; Former Hack, less so now.
*********************
Couldn’t attend the debate?
The Ubyssey will be streaming and recording all the elections debates live! Archived debates and live streams can be found at http://www.ustream.tv/channel/ams-elections-2010
*********************
The attendance at today’s debate was disheartening and frustrating—that is, candidate attendance, not audience attendance. Exactly 50% of all candidates in all three races did not attend the debates and only one of these missing candidates, Sean Heisler for Board of Governors, had bothered to send proxy representation. In two of these races, the total number of candidates running was two, which meant that there was a lot of leg and elbow room for the one that did show up.
As Geoff Costeloe of the UBC Terry Project said to me today, nearly no candidate in this race truly understands their portfolio fully and completely enough to be able to create a unique platform that separates them from the other candidates. The debates allow for us to identify the differences between the available options. But if comparisons are what we are going for then covering the debates the way I do (by attempting to provide an analysis on the differences between each candidate) is difficult and rather futile with so many candidates missing from the table. As such, I did not pay as close attention to individual answers to questions as I did in yesterday’s debate and rather more on general impressions.
Once again, this piece focuses (as much as possible) only on impressions gained through the debate. It does not take into account platform points not brought up during debate nor do I attempt to paraphrase every candidate’s stance on every issue.
*********************
The Board of Governors Race
Ahmed Azim Wazeer
Blake Frederick (absent)
Guillaume Houle
Sean Heisler (absent, proxied by Allen Chen)
It was immediately evident that without Frederick to butt heads with, Houle was a much flatter candidate. Pushing against Frederick seems to be Houle’s edge and without that edge his lack of experience and knowledge was strongly apparent. Aside from his introductory speech on intending to focus on the governance of UBC, he himself admitted that he was ill informed on most other topics questioned on including the UBC Farm, the UNA, and even Board policies.
In contrast, Wazeer continued to demonstrate depth in his understanding of various University processes, Board Issues, and Stakeholder Relationships. He remains my strongest choice for the first Board seat as the most knowledgeable and stable candidate in the race.
Heisler’s proxy was unfortunately less articulate today than yesterday as the increasingly apparent gaps in his ability to perform as a thorough representative started to weigh on him. Chen was unable to answer any of the questions asked of the candidates today due to the questions either being opinion based or on topics he had not been briefed on, of which there appear to be many.
Frederick was away due to illness.
*********************
The Vice-President Finance Race
The Invisible Man vs Elin Tayyar
[Salt measurement: I do not know either candidate in this race.]
The Invisible Man was nowhere to be found (although I didn’t break out my EMF Meter to double check) and as such there was no way for me to really make use of the debate.
The profound transparency demonstrated by the Invisible Man is a marvel to behold, but does little to liven up the discussions. Tayyar may very well have been as invisible during the debate: He was generic and gave generic answers. In his defence, there is little motivation for him to go above and beyond being average considering that his competition is a fictional character from a novella written by H.G. Wells. Yes, novella—not even a novel, but a novella.
Breaking away from the debate, it has been suggested that the Invisible Man may actually be the more competent choice for the role. I have no more insight or evidence to support this claim as of yet, but I will point out that negotiations may be uncomfortable for people to participate in when they cannot see who they are speaking to. Indeed this is a two-candidate race, but as Kang and Kodos once told the American voters: Go ahead, throw your vote away!!! *Bwaahaahaa*
I am still unsure at this point, however, which vote is considered the “throw away”.
*********************
The Vice-President Administration Race
Michael Haack (absent) vs Ekaterina Dovjenko
I had just written down in my notes that Dovjenko appeared to be a much more composed and calm speaker at today’s debate than at yesterdays when a question from the floor deliberately asked what she thought of my analysis of her as being overly eager and zealous. I’m unsure now whether the change in her demeanour was organic or intentional, but I was thoroughly amused that it was brought up.
In either case, I much prefer the personality she presented today. The change in her debate style from being overly scripted and slogan-based to more organic revealed a far more competent candidate than could be identified yesterday. She responded to the questions asked of her with thorough and thoughtful answers, despite not having an opponent at the table. She was highly articulate and has an obvious ability to recognize the types of questions that need to be asked in order to fully comprehend an issue. Dovjenko continues to be my choice for VP Admin based on her performance in the debates, and I’m not just saying that because she was alone at that table.
Discussion
Comments are disallowed for this post.
Comments are closed.