The two most dreaded weeks of the semester have arrived…. GUILD ELECTIONS, and with it comes all the saturated Facebook feeds of profile pictures, messenger spamming, lecture hall invasions, and on-campus harassment at the polling booths. A general ICK that makes everyone who is not a Guild Hack want to stay as far away from campus as possible.
With the new regulations in place, the election’s toxicity has been slightly reduced. Regulations, such as the cap on 13 OGC candidates (as per the amount sitting on council) and not campaigning for other parties outside of your own, attempt to provide fairness and clarity during these stressful times. This last regulation mentioned is relevant as it keeps parties from grouping together to nominate more candidates outside the limit. Although it is not against regulations for parties to have a second voting preference, actively campaigning for another party (e.g., attending the booths, hanging out material, or participating in lecture bashing) is considered misconduct and breaches regulations.
With this out of the way, it is no secret that several of us have probably been confronted by a Hack trying to recruit us during our time at UWA (for those who haven’t experienced this, we APPLAUD you). Whether it be a cheeky coffee catchup, that random person we met at a party two semesters ago messaging us out of the blue, or that BNOC from high- school who suddenly wants to be your best friend, the arguable catalyst of a toxic election culture is one of the problems in an otherwise engaging campus culture. A lot of the parties’ actions happen behind closed doors, and we are often unaware of this. (We were offered a glimpse of it last year with the Cruickshank-Routley memorial prize scandal).
For starters, preying on young freshers. Some might call fresher naivety the backbone of a functioning guild party, as who better than someone who has never witnessed the catastrophic unfolding of the toxic election culture at uni. They often appear to be the first group who are targeted and sometimes are deceived into believing they can make a difference
For a casual university election, one could argue that starting the recruitment process in March when we have barely had O-Day is a tad too intense. Yet, that is how rigorously done some parties’ recruitment processes are. Campaign members of parties will meet with up to 3 candidates daily to share their parties’ vision and idolise their chosen presidential candidate. One Party has taken it even further, with candidates being placed into a running google document that catalogues interactions with potential candidates, including coffee catchups and if they have a public history (club positions, high school achievements, etc.). Such documentation in a database not only raises concerns regarding privacy but is perhaps also taking the election recruitment process just a little too far.
Winning can trump all other initiatives and can be taken too far. Perhaps we need more regulations to stamp out more toxic election behaviour in the future, but those regulations must also not obstruct students’ ability to run for council if we want to encourage a democratic and fair process.