The CSU’s Election Reports from 2020 onwards reveal a drop in domestic voter turnout and an unprecedented high number of formal complaints
Laura Morales (she/her) // Video Production Manager
Scarlett Side (she/her) // Illustrator
The number of candidates in the Capilano Students Union General Elections has been increasing rapidly, from the 22 candidates in 2022, to 59 candidates in the most recent election in March 2024. Almost proportionally, the voter turnout percentage has increased from 5.7% to 14.1% in the same years.
The record number of international student candidates in the last election translated into a high voter turnout from this demographic, but “domestic voter turnout was especially low in this past election, with about 2% of eligible voters casting ballots compared to approximately 40% of eligible international students,” as stated in the memorandum sent by the CSU Executive Director (ED) Christopher Girodat on June 28. This drop in domestic voter turnout was flagged by the elections administrator, David Enis. He emphasized how extremely low this number is, and warned that, “If a group representing more than half of students is effectively disengaged from CSU governance, CSU’s legitimacy as a representative student body is at risk.”
The democratic legitimacy and reputation of the organization are at stake. The ED’s memorandum to the Collectives Committee made this clear: failing to address Enis’ concerns would pose a “regulatory risk of provincial intervention if elections are seen as problematic.” The ED, on July 30th, further urged the Committee to “block some time at upcoming meetings to brainstorm how […] to navigate this study.”
Due to lack of quorum, the Collectives Committee has only been able to meet in two of the seven meetings it has scheduled this year. The ED’s memorandum was discussed on August 2nd; according to the minutes of this meeting, it was proposed “to keep a document open for everyone to add suggestions and recommendations on how to improve engagement.” The discussion was meant to continue on September 20th, but the meeting didn’t take place because of lack of quorum. A plan to curb the issue hasn’t been developed yet. Time pressure was reduced after the Board of Directors decided to cancel the by-election that was meant to be held this fall. Still, at this rate, it is worrying whether this plan can be created and implemented in time for the general elections in the spring.
The election was also mired by an inordinate number of complaints.The number of formal complaints went from zero on three elections in a row, from 2020 to 2021, to 57 on the election this spring. A higher number of candidates translated into an unprecedented number of “anonymous complaints by candidates about other candidates.” David Enis’s main concern is that students are being intimidated into not submitting complaints and evidence, or refusing to do it unless their submissions can be kept anonymous. To be able to properly investigate and verify information, he proposed to prohibit anonymous complaints by candidates, arguing that “students seeking a CSU Board position should have the courage to publicly state if CSU rules are being broken.” Additionally, he proposed to “make it an offence to apply pressure to discourage a person from filing a complaint.”
David’s Enis is not alone in his concern. His predecessor Ron Laufer, who stepped down in 2022 after being involved with the CSU elections for more than six years, reported that the 2022 Spring’s By-Election was “marred by serious allegations, complaints and disqualifications that in at least one case undermined fundamental voting rights.” He also received many serious allegations about The Fall’s General Election, but he lacked hard enough evidence to take action. In the report he submitted before resigning, Laufer expressed strong concerns that some candidates may have won after breaking the rules of the election: “I simply didn’t have strong enough evidence to disqualify them from the process.”
There are many approaches to restore the legitimacy of CSU elections. According to Laufer, efforts should be directed to disincentivize “the kind of cheating taking place in these elections rather than leave the decision making to an election administrator that does not have the resources to properly investigate the conduct of these elections.” From strategies aimed for the orientation stage and pre-election public awareness, to others addressing new rules during campaigning and penalties for after the elections, the level of discussion needed to create a plan for the next elections can’t happen if the elected board members keep failing to attend and contribute to meetings. Problematic behavior during elections and lack of quorum for meetings can be proof of another issue—are students running for the right reasons?
