Students are too stupid to vote

Monday, January 16, 2006


Written by Marty Williams

Students are too stupid to vote. The sooner that we admit that they don’t deserve suffrage, (and the sooner the rest of us shut up and stop trying to convince them that is their democratic right and duty to exercise their franchise) the better off we’ll all be. Let’s leave it go.

After all, phrases like “exercise their franchise” are worse then meaningless to students: they are downright annoying. Or rather, they would be annoying if students had enough wit to figure out what they mean. But they don’t.

The Rock the Vote boat has sunk. It is official: nobody cares. Go ahead and ask them, they will tell you that all politics is corrupt, nothing matters, and nobody is trustworthy. Bla, bla, bla and whah, whah, whah.

As the Einsteins at Elections Canada have discovered, it does no good to mention that other university students fought for these votes, for the right of 18 year olds to mark a ballot. Who the hell cares? That was the past, and the past exists to be moronically distained.

You can try to rile them up with the fact that it used to be only white, male, property owners over 21 that could vote, but you will see scant evidence of comprehension -- and even less evidence of concern -- for your trouble. So why are we twisting ourselves up in knots over these know-nothings and their knuckle-headed no-nothingness? How many times to they get to kick us in the teeth before we stop smiling?

Your average student won’t pause the ipod to consider getting informed. Sure, they will sign a petition against bacon farming, military dance lessons, and pay raises for university presidents; and we keep hearing how involved and caring they are about Third World debt, disease, war, and unfair judging at Canadian Idol; but don’t expect them to take the 15 seconds it takes to cast a ballot. If it’s something that their dad might do, it is, by definition, dirty, boring, and status lowering. Voting is so main-stream that if somebody sees you do it, it could negatively impact on your status as nincompoop nihilist. And students just couldn’t have that. That wouldn’t give them an easy out; they’d have to explain themselves. And to explain themselves they’d have to know something. And to know something they’d have to examine something. And that is way, way, beyond their feeble mental capacities.

So I say fine. Whatever you do students, don’t vote. You don’t deserve it. Be the idiot that you are instead. I don’t care. But know this: every time you stay away from the voting booth you make my vote count more – which is what I am sure you wanted. After all, we white middle aged middle class men don’t have enough power, enough say in how the country is run; we need more. And we deserve it. After all, we pay attention to the issues and vote for the people who will give us a few more bucks and to hell with everybody else. Including and especially you. Here is what I think of the issues:

  • Student loans? Not my problem.
  • Youth unemployment? Doesn’t impact on me; don’t care.
  • Environmental degradation? I’m betting that I’ll be dead before it gets too bad, so I’d rather not have to make any sacrifices now..

I’m mister middle of the road, the guy that’s going to elect Prime Minister Harpy by doing something easy that you can’t be bothered to do.

Thanks a lot, stupid.

/Comment below. (We reserve the right to edit comments for content)

| More


Back to Top
  1. Posted by: uter on Jan 16, 2006 @ 5:15pm

    Who is this Marty idiot? It looks like anyone can publish something on the cannon. I reason I am not voting is bc I am in my transition riding. The system is set up too complicated. If i wanted to vote in my home riding, I would have had to go downtown Slater street in Ottawa, far out of my way. And here I can't be bothered to go wait in line to "register" so I can vote in this riding which is somewhat of a joke considering all the ridiculous parties that are out there. I also do not know any of the candidates.

  2. Posted by: Jimmney Cricket on Jan 16, 2006 @ 5:39pm

    LOL! That is fantatsic. For the person who doesnt get that this is a parody, you are too stupid to vote as well, heh.

  3. Posted by: Dave Heppenstall on Jan 16, 2006 @ 9:46pm

    Reverse psychology? Sounds complicated...
    Ok then, don't use reverse psychology.
    Alright then I will!

  4. Posted by: Alex on Jan 16, 2006 @ 10:39pm

    Well this was a waste of time, first I thought it was going to be something informative but just some cliched clap-trap about youth voting.

    Even then, it does make sense that political bodies don't really care about the youth vote. To put it bluntly and being in that demographic, they don't really contribute anything truely productive to society.

    Case in point, you don't see anyone making a big deal turning 18 and being a legal adult.

  5. Posted by: James on Jan 16, 2006 @ 10:44pm

    Well that was a waste of time, first I thought it was going to add to the debate regarding youth voting, but just some defensive clap-trap.

  6. Posted by: Alex on Jan 16, 2006 @ 10:57pm

    polly want a cracker?

  7. Posted by: hannah on Jan 16, 2006 @ 11:07pm


    I agree with you that many students are apathetic and uninformed.

    However, I also know a number of students that do not vote because they do not feel that any of the candidates/political parties represent them.

  8. Posted by: shawn on Jan 16, 2006 @ 11:28pm

    "they will tell you that all politics is corrupt, nothing matters, and nobody is trustworthy"

    Except for the nothing matters part, I'd say this viewpoint is fairly accurate... Politicians are the least desirable people to have making any decisions... They build careers off of evading answers and accumulating power through backroom deals while building a never ending bureaucracy (that not even professional accountants can navigate) as a side effect of having to win votes some how to stay in office.

    Political apathy is caused largely by political institutions being incapable of responding to anyones needs on issues which affect them... Example: 76% of Canadians rate the environment the highest government priority and military spending one of the lowest... Politicians respond by record breaking spending on military, many times that of environmental spending, while Canada's emissions grow higher and higher with no regard for Kyoto not to mention sustainable development... notice how rising activism based on direct action coincides with no one caring about elections... it's somewhat telling... As Chomsky states, elections are run by the same guys who sell toothpaste.

  9. Posted by: uter on Jan 16, 2006 @ 11:43pm

    good job shawn, that was well articulated. You put into words how I felt.

    Politics seems to be much like the market system: only the short term is considered. They are not designed to look ahead and have no interest in doing so.

  10. Posted by: Ethan Chiddicks on Jan 16, 2006 @ 11:58pm

    I had the opportunity to work my local Elections Canada returning office over the break. There are many ways for students to vote, they simply need to put the time and effort into getting the information and acting on it. If a student wishes to vote in his or her home riding while in Guelph, they need to apply for a National ballot at the local returning office (90 Woodlawn). They can even apply for it by mail, if they do it soon enough. However, you can only vote in this way if you apply by the 17th at 6pm.

    Alternately, you can register to vote here in Guelph. You simply need to present proof of 'ordinary residence', that has your name, signature, and address. A driver's licence is perfect, however it likely doesn't have your Guelph address on it if you're not from Guelph. In this case, a utility bill, rent receipt, credit card bill or anything mildly official with your name and address in Guelph will allow you to vote here. Use this in combination with a passport, OHIP card, driver's license or anything that has a name and signature on it.

    I think that there is a polling station right at the University, and you can register to vote on Election day, providing you bring your ID.

  11. Posted by: Ethan on Jan 16, 2006 @ 11:58pm

    If you're thinking that voting is a waste of time, consider this. This riding only has about 80,000 voters. Since only 50-60% of them actually vote, the 20,000 students at Guelph could really make an impression. While not every one of us is able to vote (you need to be 18 and a Canadian Citizen), it's something to think about.

  12. Posted by: Ann on Jan 17, 2006 @ 12:11am

    I realize that what I'm about to suggest is a complete contradiction to the point of an election, but if there isn't a party that represents your views, you could always vote "against" a party... (gasp)
    While I am not condoning the 'When in doubt, choose B' method with which we university students are all too familiar, I don't feel students should protest by being silent. If you really don’t have a clue, then fine -- don’t vote. For the rest of us, however, it has come to a point where we have to choose the lesser of The Evils. While I don't strongly support any of the parties right now, there are some fundamental platforms with which I disagree. This will largely decide my vote on Monday.

  13. Posted by: Jesse on Jan 17, 2006 @ 1:36am

    "76% of Canadians rate the environment the highest government priority"

    i love when people invent bogus statistics....it makes their points all that much better.

    i'm sorry, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that NOWHERE NEAR 76 per cent of Canadians would rate the environment (or Kyoto) as THE top priority. not even close.

    Try health care, education, crime, ethics.....

    I'm not trying to say the environment is unimportant....just that your stat is clearly fictitious.

  14. Posted by: Kyle Lambert on Jan 17, 2006 @ 9:38am

    It is very easy to blame political institutions for one's apathy. However, it is much harder to work to change those institutions or their setting in order to build a legitimate democracy.

    For example, the Green Party, which will get about 5% of the vote in most provinces, should be allowed in the national political debates. Unfortunately, it is not in the interest of the other parties, those who control the debate setting, to allow the Greens' entrance.

    Here is a case of a fairly small-scale issue that matters a lot to the function of democracy. Unfortunately, very few people outside of the Green Party have gotten upset about it. If you don't like the state of Canada's democracy, work to change it. If not, quit complaining.

  15. Posted by: Anonymous on Jan 17, 2006 @ 11:48am

    Hey Hannah,
    I agree with you that not many students vote because they do not feel that the candidates properly represent them. I hate how everyone tells you to vote because it is your right to "choose" because the people that we are "choosing" were already pre-selected by their parties. I didn't nominate Paul Martin to run for Prime Minister so how is my voting for him exercising my right to choose? If I were to vote in this National Election I would probably vote for my best friend because he is the only person I would trust with the Country and my future.

  16. Posted by: Chris on Jan 17, 2006 @ 2:10pm

    One less young person voting is one less vote for the NDP/Greens/Liberals (usually, since most young people vote that way).

    So come on guys, don't vote. Make my vote count more too.

  17. Posted by: Natalie on Jan 17, 2006 @ 4:02pm

    There was a comment above mentioning that, like corporations, politicans are thinking only short-term. Then there was another comment mentioning that students don't feel well represented. Well, maybe the yuppies aren't the only short-sighted ones. We as students need to realize that we won't be students forever. I don't think we should use the fact that we're students for only another 1-5 years as an excuse not to vote, since whatever the politicians do now will affect us once we are being "represented". It isn't just about tuition hikes & how expensive booze is. We need to get out of our bubbles and realize that there's a whole world-full of issues ranging from the environment (p.s.from what I hear Libs plan to inject $1 billion into the clean-up of Great Lakes) to things like int'l problems (which will likely affect us all once PM Harpy decides to buddy up with GWB). So let's not be so narrow-minded as to think that there should be a party concerned just with how much bus tickets will cost to go home on Thanksgiving - let's give ourselves more credit than that. Dig deep or go with your gut feelings - either one is better than nothing at all.

  18. Posted by: on Jan 17, 2006 @ 6:46pm

    You people are aware that you can go into the voting booth and either spoil your ballots, or even select the abstain option on them right? Just because you don't feel comfortable enough to back a party doesn't mean your vote doesn't count. So you think the candidates chosen to represent you are useless? Show it. It's a vote of no confidence, and these votes ARE counted. Simple fact is this, if you do not participate in an election, you don't have the right to whine about what the government does in the following term. If you're eligible to vote, and don't, then you just said your voice is worthless, so do the rest of us a favour who actually put weight behind our voices, and just shut up for a government term.

    And if you say you've got no time for going in to spoil your ballot, then remember that the next time you want to whine about why the government isn't representing your properly. All the time you spend complaining, probably doesn't come close to the time you would have spent filling out a ballot.

  19. Posted by: Jesse on Jan 17, 2006 @ 8:03pm

    You said Canadians ranked it as the HIGHEST priority....not that it SHOULD be a priority. 'Top' implying Canadians would rank the environment more important than health care. this test seems to have asked people to select what they care about from 11 choices....without actually ranking them. That's a pretty key difference....like I was saying in the first place.

  20. Posted by: FELLOW COMRAD on Jan 17, 2006 @ 11:08pm

    Excuse me mister cannon editor. I'm wondering why the communist party, the CHP and the Marxist Leninist party have all been collapsed into "OTHER" in your poll?? This isn't very democratic is it? Can't we be allowed to vote online here for the party we are acutally casting our ballot for!? The fringe parties were banned from the all candidates debate tonight at the Guelph Chamber of commerce - something that was very undemocratic. Christian Heritage Party has a very different stance than the communist party and should be differentiated. Perhaps you should change your poll.

  21. Posted by: on Jan 18, 2006 @ 12:53am

    I agree with "Comrad". The Chambre of Commerce's lame excuse was that there wasn't enough time for anyone to speak. That reasoning certainly doesn't apply to an online poll.

  22. Posted by: Drew on Jan 18, 2006 @ 12:59am

    My guess would be that the number voting for these other parties is so negligible that it doesn’t even matter. Come on, the Communist Party? Are you kidding me, do I even have to get into why his ideas won’t work? I think this article brings up a good point. I don’t know everyone, but it seems that most people I know have a very “I don’t care” attitude towards voting. For all the people taking the easy way out by saying no one represents them, what are you an idealist?

    Let me make one thing clear I despise politics; I’m smart enough not to have anything to do with it. But I voted, in fact I had to go across town to vote for my home riding. Why? Because I should, and to keep Harpy out or at least help stop a majority, which I don’t want for any party.

  23. Posted by: Tom on Jan 18, 2006 @ 2:13am

    Drew, I know what you were getting at, but please don't say votes are "negligible". It is exactly that kind of thinking that locks people into voting Liberal when they really want to vote NDP or Green, because they feel their votes will be lost. Even though our disproportionate voting system makes a lot of votes not actually count, maybe one day our politicians will finally accept that it is wrong to give a party a majority without the actual majority of popular votes. The only way to convince them of that is to continuously bring up the issue. And the best way of doing that is by taking your support (ie: vote) to the smaller parties. I guess, yes, that makes me an idealist.

  24. Posted by: Drew on Jan 18, 2006 @ 11:30am

    Actually I wasn't considering the NDP or Green party as the negligible votes, I guess I wasn't clear enough.

  25. Posted by: Sarah on Jan 18, 2006 @ 2:42pm

    Canada is a multi-party sytem (ideally), therefore the votes of those people who do support the so-called "fringe" parties do matter. Not in the sense that these parties are likely to elect an MP, but in the sense that their supporters have cast a vote according to their convictions and exercised the right that we all enjoy in a democratic society. While I may not agree with the entire platforms of the Communist party or the CHP, I have now attended two forums at which their candidates spoke, and they each have their good points. I find it disappointing that these candidates would have been excluded from speaking at a debate, a forum in which the voices of all those who are running in the election have a right to be heard. The arbitrary exclusion of certain points of view based on lack of popular support to me seems a violation of our right to free speech. Whether you agree with the "fringe" candidates or not, the fact remains that they are candidates just as much as those from the larger parties, and they have a right to be heard.

  26. Posted by: Sarah on Jan 18, 2006 @ 2:43pm

    P.S.-So did our illustrious Liberal MP actually show up to this debate?

  27. Posted by: IN SOLIDARITY on Jan 18, 2006 @ 2:56pm

    Ya she showed up last night to the Guelph Chamber of Commerce..she picks and chooses which ones to go to. She was probably too scared to deal with pointed questions from the students at the earlier debate in Peter Clark Hall...doesn't look good for her reputation.

  28. Posted by: Sarah on Jan 18, 2006 @ 3:48pm

    Yeah, I heard she's only doing the televised debates...could it be out of fear that without the regulated environment of television she might actually get called on her performance as an MP?

    Sigh...and to think I used to be a Liberal supporter...

  29. Posted by: votingcitizen on Jan 18, 2006 @ 8:36pm

    hey marty, i got your article, i think i might be the only one though. and just to comment on previous postings, excuses not to vote, are just that, excuses...

  30. Posted by: Tim on Jan 18, 2006 @ 9:34pm

    This makes no sense... replace to vote with something else and it quickly becomes obvious the argument is baseless... "excuses not to kill, are just that, excuses..." sounds like something to come out of a Nazi prison camp between officers. If I don't vote, it's because our entire political and economic system are based on anti-democratic bureaucracy, whether voting within that system is worthwhile is quite debatable and I think it's historically somewhat dillusional to suggest it indeed is in the vast majority of cases.

    If political institutions, ran on giving the idea of my surrending of my decision making powers concerning my life to a representative for multiple years are unacceptable to me... to suggest I can change this by voting is somewhat ridiculous and has little, if no, historical precendent. Politics is a field in which people seek power and try and keep that power once they've got it, surrendering this power once they've obtained it in a decentralized manner is almost unheard of, and when it does happen it's almost never as a result of voting.

  31. Posted by: FELLOW COMRAD on Jan 18, 2006 @ 10:05pm

    which is exaclty why we must recognize those canditates who are attempting to offer the people an alternative to the current system - and alternative which seeks to redistribute wealth and power and is genuinely concerned about the good of the people. Before people immediately reject the C-Word, consider what the today's party platform stands for..which is essentially better social justice.

  32. Posted by: Jason on Jan 18, 2006 @ 11:57pm

    to uter

    To vote for you home (ottawa) rep, is easy. I did it, all you do is go to the election office here in guelph, (woodlawn road) and they'll hook you up to do it, takes about 15 mins.

    Is that too much to ask? are you so uniformed, or do you lack the desire to be informed about these options?

    I agree with you about you comment on "onsidering all the ridiculous parties that are out there" refering to here in Guelph. Communist party? Marxist Leninist party?

  33. Posted by: on Jan 19, 2006 @ 10:11am

    A question I ask myself more and more as I get into more discussions with people is, "Is it possible to have a conversation about anything where at some point, Hitler and/or the Nazis and/or concentration camps are not raise?"

    Not a specific dig at you, Tim. Just a (what I consider to be) unfortunate trend in modern argumentation. There's a time and place to raise the spectre of the Third Reich, but I'd say that is about 5% of the total number of times people actually use it in comparisons.

  34. Posted by: Tim on Jan 19, 2006 @ 12:19pm

    The Nazi's just happen to be a well known example of something almost everyone (barring a few neo-Nazi's) understands was morally reprehensible.

    What I said could easily be changed to "sounds like something to come out of a Brazillian UN Peacekeeping Officer in Haiti to his troops." But unfortunately most people don't have much of a grasp of the situation in Haiti due to the extremely poor job done by our media (and politicians for that matter). (outofhaiti.ca)

    To think if the Communist Party member wouldn't become corrupted by power if they hit a critical enough mass to elect an MP is naive and completely ignorant of history. It's easily to stand for social justice when you have know you won't get into power, or don't have to maintain it through our circus known as elections. I think 'Fellow Comrad' missed my point entirely. Power and bureaucracy corrupt, not so much the intentions of the MP themselves... hence why voting is not much of a solution because it further legitimizes the present concentration of power. It also either increases bureaucracy further, or it sends government functioning to private corporations even further from public control... either option is crap.

  35. Posted by: Kelsey on Jan 19, 2006 @ 9:32pm

    This article was awesome! I am continually amazed by how many students have no interest in voting and yet continue to complain about their government. In my opinion, if you choose not to participate in the election process than you dont have the right to complain about what you get. Every vote makes a difference, how hard is it to find an issue that concerns you? Watch the news once in a while, pick up a newspaper. We are supposed to be the future of this nation, yet we take no pride in building it. We spit in the faces of all of those who fought to bring the vote to everyone. For those who think that its too complicated to vote...suck it up...it couldn't be easier. Bring your drivers license and a bill... 2 seconds later...done. Then again, like Marty says without NDP support my conservative vote will go a lot further...perhaps all the way to a majority

  36. Posted by: Peter on Jan 20, 2006 @ 9:20pm

    Hey, this guy is encouraging students to vote.
    For those people who's trying to argue, come on! get the point!!
    This guy is on our side:) geez...

  37. Posted by: Kevin on Jan 20, 2006 @ 11:38pm

    It's kind of funny really, I had to convince the communist party leader that I seriously wanted a sign and that I wasn't joking.

    If you're going to vote left, vote communist, not Marxist-Leninist. The Guelph guy is a dick.

  38. Posted by: Attila Bizony on Jan 22, 2006 @ 12:23pm

    Thanks Marty! It's all true b/c when I ask other students if they're going to vote, I normally get "nah!" and that's it there's no real reason for their decision. What really gets me is that not voting is just like going up to a veteran on rememberance day and slapping him in the face. There! That's for standing up for my right to a free society, you old geezer.

  39. Posted by: on Jan 22, 2006 @ 11:15pm

    Hi Kevin,

    I appreciate the fact that you wanted my sign, but I must declare that I am only the Guelph candidate, not the party leader. But thanks!


  40. Posted by: John h on Jan 23, 2006 @ 1:01am

    Hi Folks

    I'm pretty amazed that, given the large number of choices, none of them can be seen as representing your worldview. Here in Guelph we have one of the most successful Green Party organizations in the country and yet that still isn't enough to get out people who claim to be environmentalists?

    Not a good sign when appearing jaded and cynical about the political world has become trendy among university students.

    Things are gonna be done in your name whether you vote or not so why not make an effort to have some say in it?

    It is worth noting that a political party receives something in the range of $1.75 for every vote it receives so even if you don't believe your party will be elected you can fatten the coffers for next time ;)

  41. Posted by: on Jan 23, 2006 @ 1:21pm

    So what ever happened to those questions we submitted for the candidates two fridays ago?

  42. Posted by: on Jan 23, 2006 @ 1:37pm

    as a candidate, i can say that thecannon.ca did not even ask me one question. are they doing their job?

  43. Posted by: uter on Jan 23, 2006 @ 8:40pm

    I voted! I voted even though I said I wouldn't. The mood struck me today.

  44. Posted by: Jessica on Jan 23, 2006 @ 10:30pm

    I just sat in the LA Cafe with 50 other voters crowded around the TV who were yelling and cheering at the televisions. Some people voted, even if some are too apathetic.

  45. Posted by: Julie Goldstein on Jan 24, 2006 @ 12:26am

    Scott Gilbert: I find it very interesting that as the President of the CSA that you can actually question the integrity of thecannon.ca for not asking you any questions. Does it not occur to you for one second that it is a conflict of interest to represent the student body and further your own political ideals at the same time? You should question your own integrity and whether you are doing your job. The CSA and it's leaders should not represent any specific political party. Your affiliation is with the CSA and should remain unbiased in politics...which isn't to say that you haven't forwarded your own personal agenda within the CSA. I am completely disgusted with your affiliation and you should truly be ashamed of yourself for representing the entire student body of the University as Communist supporters. I understand that you have raised important issues, however remaining unbiased and a true representative of the students would have been a more ethical choice for the President of the CSA.

  46. Posted by: Ryan on Jan 24, 2006 @ 1:07am

    Just thought I would completely bug some people on here and say...
    WAY TO GO HARPER!!! haha

    Sorry that was low, but it's been awhile since they won...

    Julie, don't harp on Scott too much... I don't share any views with him (see message above as proof), but he took a lot of time out to have a good discussion on the cannon which had many well-argued points. Props to him for having an educated well-versed viewpoint, even if I don't agree with it.

  47. Posted by: on Jan 24, 2006 @ 1:26am

    You have brought shame to the serious and respected organization that is the, uh, Communist Party of Canada.

    But seriously, isn't the cannon run by the CSA? Isn't the CSA run by Scott? Any Q&A would pretty much just be a transcript of his inner monologue.

    But don't worry. At this rate, you've only got a year before you can try again.

  48. Posted by: on Jan 24, 2006 @ 2:28am

    Ok, this is the sort of criticism that just drives me crazy.

    It would literally take 15 seconds to go to csaonline.ca and find out that not only (A) is Scott Gilbert NOT the President of the CSA, but that (B) the CSA has no president.

    I don't have any problem with people making valid criticisms, but just flying off the handle when you aren't armed with any facts is stupid.

    For reference, the CSA is not run by Scott. He is one person on a 5-person non-hierarchical executive which, in turn, is overseen by a 33 person board of directors. thecannon.ca in turn, is cojointly owned by the CSA and the campus co-op, and managed by a committee (on which Scott doesn't sit). All this information is publicly available.

    But why look up actual information when inuendo and baseless allegations will do?

  49. Posted by: Sarah on Jan 24, 2006 @ 3:22pm

    The CSA has a president now?

    I call Vice President! No wait, Treasurer! No...Junior Executive Secretary in Charge of Stickin' it to Da Man!

  50. Posted by: Julie Goldstein on Jan 24, 2006 @ 8:34pm

    I want to apologize for the criticisms that I made. I am aware that the CSA has no president...I have actually done a lot of research on the CSA but sometimes an alcohol-fueled rage with the election results happens and the right words don't flow. Bad excuse, but I think we've all been there at one time or another. Sorry about that. I do stand by my belief that representing the Communist Party is however a conflict of interest. I think while it isn't appropriate, it was impressive that Scott took a stance for what he believes in. I'd rather Canada go Communist than turn into the mini USA that we are now going to become. Thank God for minority government. Hopefully we can hang on to our right to abortion and gay marriages....I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

  51. Posted by: John h on Jan 25, 2006 @ 12:56am

    Hands up all those who have actually existed in a communist society.


    Why are we going to become a "mini USA?

    We will indeed "just have to wait and see" For now it might be cool to just take a collective deep breath and relax.

  52. Posted by: on Jan 25, 2006 @ 10:25pm

    Thank you for that concession, Julie.

    On the point of a conflict of interest, I can see how you feel that way. Over the years, I've heard a number of people express their desire for the CSA executive to not take political stances.

    You might be reassured to note that Scott took off a number of vacation days and only campaigned for the election during those days, and not using CSA resources.

  53. Posted by: george on Jan 26, 2006 @ 11:54am

    "only campaigned for the election during those days"

    you sure luke?

    seems to me like he's been using his position to campaign the entire semester.

    military policy, health food services, his table at new student day, fair trade coffee...

    were these really in the best interests of students(a lot have their doubts) or was it him trying to show that he can be a communist?

  54. Posted by: geoge on Jan 26, 2006 @ 11:56am

    and his use of thecannon.ca to further his views

    legal yes, ethical--debatable, CSA resource--debatable

  55. Posted by: on Jan 26, 2006 @ 2:33pm

    I think you're looking at the situation backward, George. Wouldn't it make more sense for Scott's personal ethics to inform BOTH his time on the CSA executive, as well as his choice to run for the Communist party?

    The alternative, which you seem to be suggesting, is that he simply planned all along to use the CSA as a kick-start to run for an unpopular and widely-maligned political party for reasons which are unassociated with his own beliefs. And that doesn't make sense.

    All the commissioners receive a mandate based on the way they campaigned during the CSA elections. Scott campaigned as the president of a left-wing social activist club, so you shouldn't be surprised at what he's done since being elected.

  56. Posted by: george on Jan 27, 2006 @ 10:11pm

    your right im not suprised. i voted 'no' in the election because there was nobody who was right wing running...actually...I may be mistaken but I think there may have been...but he got kicked out of the race so it didn't matter. probably shouldn't have voted so that quorum wouldn't have been reached...actually... I don't think quorum was reached for some questions...but...then the rules would change and spoiled ballots would be counted wouldn't they. Oh well guess you can't win em all or any for that matter

  57. Posted by: on Jan 28, 2006 @ 3:28pm

    Your attitude is disheartening, sir.

    When quorum is not reached, quorum is not reached. When questions fail, questions fail. Despite your innuendos to the contrary, the CSA is legally forbidden to ignore things like quorum and results, and the University could not collect fee increases for the CSA that weren't approved by legal referenda.

    The CSA is governed by the Ontario Corporations Act. If you have a problem, contact the government and present your evidence. Otherwise, give the uninformed criticism a rest.

  58. Posted by: george on Jan 29, 2006 @ 6:24pm

    i apolpologize, I guess I exagerated a bit much.

    I don't remember who it was I was going to vote for. All I remember is he was the only person I somewhat agreed with and his name was off the ballot.
    However, I have a lot of questions that cannot be answered about last years referendum. Such as the WRC questions which had more than twice the number of spoiled ballots as any other questions. As well the second WRC question had less than half the votes as any other question and only passed by 17.
    I do not wish to take these to the governement. I am merely saying I have questions and they probably cannot be answered.

  59. Posted by: on Jan 29, 2006 @ 9:18pm

    Apology accepted.

    In turn, all I am saying is that the questions can be answered, for absolute certain. All you need to do is ask the appropriate person. The CSA pays several people a considerable amount of money to make sure the books are in order, and it is further beholden to the University of Guelph for collecting its fees legally. If you have questions, contact the Finance and Human Resources Commissioner at [email protected] I guarantee your questions can be answered.

    As for the candidate you mention, he was removed from the ballot for gross electoral malfeasance. The Chief Electoral Officer ruled that his conduct violated so many rules that the other candidates wouldn't stand a chance against him, and the Board of Directors ruled with her after viewing the evidence. You might have agreed with his views, but if you believe in democracy, you can't agree with his tactics.

  60. Posted by: on Feb 3, 2006 @ 2:24pm

    Unfortunately thecannon.ca is only able to list 5 options on the front page poll. This is why only the leading 4 parties were listed and the other three candidates were lumped together. It was pointed out that this was problematic and the poll was subsequently changed.
    I hope this helps to clarify things.



Share your thoughts

Bookstore First Year