The “volunteers to mimic the organizational effect of one” argument doesn’t address the point. The real advantage of slate candidates over independent candidates isn’t the cooperative group advantage of working together as a slate – it’s that it’s so much easier to vote for an entire slate than to choose individual platforms. And then there’s the resulting positive feedback: under a slate system, when independents have a history of never winning, why would you “waste your vote” on them?

The great thing about the tacit slates that inevitably exist in the absence of a real slate system is that they’re tacit. They may be helping each other behind the scenes, but there’s no public endorsement. The average voter is no longer under the belief that “If I like Candidate A from Team 1, I’ll probably like the rest of Team 1, so I’ll just vote for Team 1″. Without package deals, voters have to actually learn about the candidates and their respective platforms. Of course, some voters aren’t sufficiently motivated to do this, and so many students who are less informed on the issues and candidates do not vote.

…and the problem is?

Voters don’t have the time or energy to go through every candidate’s platform. The hack may, but if you believe everyone cares, just look at voter turnout.

Slates provide an important heuristic short-cut for the average voter, and it’s irresponsible to conceal the slates WHICH ALREADY EXIST from them in the public sphere. Institutionalizing them will make them better.

Candidates who require the crutch of a slate to get elected by association with a team – and not on their own ideas and merits – probably shouldn’t be elected either.

I may be mistaken, but your argument seems to be that under a slate system, any independent candidate should be assumed to have been already judged “unslateworthy” and/or not a “team player,” and the voters should not deem them worthy of consideration. By extension, candidates with viewpoints not in line with those of an established slate would – and, it appears you are arguing, should – fall in this category.

To me, this seems to be the strongest argument of all _against_ slates.

The slate screening process is important. People should be working to gain the trust of people involved in the slate in order to be nominated as a candidate.

As for competency, I have very little to say to that other than the alternative doesn’t seem to be doing much better.

The inability or unwillingness of one person to work as a part of a team, under a slate system, can and should disqualify that person from electoral success, unless they are able to barnstorm their way to victory.

Slates are a part of a democracy, and they already exist. It’s only honest to tell the voters about them. Independent candidates are more likely to be weak, untested, and fail while in office. It’s a better way.

Slates pose a major problem for a democracy- they fundamentally reduce the ability of a candidate who doesn’t have groupies or isn’t part of a large, identifiable group to run a campaign and to win. Enstating slates essentially means that everyone has to run on a slate, which does a huge disservice to the AMS.

The sheer magnitude of the loss is difficult to fathom, as the institutional memory that slates took with them when they stopped existing was never codified.

Some institutions may have other ways of encouraging good performance from independents, but at UBC it just makes no sense at all. UBC has a spectrum, has camps, and, as we saw last year, has slates. What it doesn’t have is effective slates, because the AMS foolishly bans the visible manifestation of the institution, and therefore suppresses the useful components.

I agree that it’s been a bit disheartening to see that many others haven’t even bothered to start campaigning yet! However, it’s still anybody’s game at this point.

Side note: I chose not to produce posters, handbills/flyers, rave cards or anything else on paper this year in order to run a sustainable, litter-free campaign. As you know from your experience, the election process can generate a ton of waste, much of which ends up on the ground.

It may come back to bite me later, but it’s a decision I stand by. Hopefully in the future other candidates will do the same!