The AMS debates are the pinnacle of badly designed student politics. From the room used to host the debates to the way questions are taken. The amount of time allotted for discussion and and even the lack of organization when the room was booked are choices that encourage students to care less about student politics.
The debate was held in the Michael Kingsmill Forum.Which is not in a high traffic area, the room lacks adequate signage to tell you where it is. These choices seem to have been made by people seeking convenience for student politicians and themselves without appropriate consideration of what works best for most students. The area in front of CiTR should be where all the debates are held because it’s almost impossible to walk into the Nest without realizing that an event is going on down there. The area has high traffic, there’s a ton of space for seating and it’s wide open for so many more students could join there.
The next design flaw is less to do with the specific debate, but how the debates are scheduled. In the middle of midterm season, one of the most stressful times of the year, all three debates are scheduled to take place. Why not move the debates around when the AMS realized it was breaking BC law and rescheduled the election? This seems like a choice without any thought. However, this lack of thought is frustrating for many students who may have midterms during the week of the debates and thus won’t be able to attend.
The questions that candidates are asked come from a few places, journalists at the Ubyssey, Twitter, and the debates audience. The questions are great, they lead to greater discussion than would otherwise be held in an interview. A problem, however, arises when some races have questions only from Twitter or only from the room. This is an issue because it excludes students either online or in person who may care about a specific race. So, if you care about the VP Academic and University Affairs and you can’t be there in person, well then it sucks to be you. A secondary problem arises when the questions from Twitter are filtered. Questions are chosen by The Ubyssey and the debate’s moderator. This means that questions that are either offensive, disruptive or unrelated aren’t asked. However, the sieve here is too fine.For example, an important questions regarding staff unionization went unanswered.
These questions may allow students to know which candidates are serious and which ones aren’t, which candidates know what they are talking about and which ones are BS-ing their way through the debates. This isn’t because Ubyssey reporters are trying to stop you from asking questions. It happens due to the time constraints that the Elections Committee imposes on the debates.
The time constraints that restrict which questions are asked also causes as a second and equally problematic issue.Some questions have one minute to answer, and others have two. The time limit seems arbitrary and seems to disrupt the candidates not encourage debate. Giving two minutes to discuss a question means that a single student can high-jack the forum and prohibit other candidates from adding to the discussion. Candidates need to be given a longer period of time so that they can actually express their thoughts and not be cut off mid-thought. The time constraints that the AMS Elections Committee institute are almost designed to make you hate participating. No thoughts are fully expressed, no nuance is conveyed and all this tell us is that no thought is used to design the debates.
The cherry on top of this was getting kicked out the room the second the first debate ended. It seemed as if the organizers thought that nobody would want to discuss these things so, obviously there was no reason to book the room for a single minute longer than necessary.. This also shows a substantial amount of negligence from the AMS Elections Committee when making design decisions for the debates.
The amalgamation of these issues show how little the AMS Elections Committee cares about what students think or how they choose how to vote. The design choices are made without discussing what times the moderators are available, without considering student’s midterm schedules, and without care. If the committee’s goal is increasing student participation in the student society, they fail in a spectacular fashion. The design makes you hate being present at debates, it makes you hate the candidates, and most of all it makes you hate participating in student politics.