Assembly loses a win-win

During AMS Assembly on Jan. 21, a majority voted against a motion proposing that the Society donate $0.10 to relief efforts in Haiti for each ballot cast in the upcoming AMS executive elections.

The motion, put forth by Team CHR presidential candidate Safiah Chowdhury and seconded by Team PNF presidential candidate Mitch Piper, would have used the funds typically spent in previous years to offer a free cup of Common Ground coffee to students who voted.

AMS Commissioner of Internal Affairs Lucas Anderson said donations to Haiti represent a good cause, but the act of tying a donation to a vote might influence the results of the election by creating additional motives for casting a ballot.

For the AMS executive elections, which typically have a low voter turnout, the suggestion to make a $0.10 donation for each ballot cast would likely have bolstered voter turnout in addition to providing humanitarian relief to Haitians in need.

Rather than offering students who vote a coupon for free coffee, the suggestion to launch an alternative project rooted in humanitarian aid was creative.

It’s shortsighted to consider only the minute needs of our student government above the major devastation happening elsewhere, and an overreaction to assume a $0.10 donation will put a wrench in the outcome of the AMS elections.

Whether or not the motion was put forth as a way for either AMS executive candidate team to win votes, it would still have positive effects on Haitian relief and voter turnout.

If enacted, the motion would also have been a win-win scenario from a public relations standpoint. If the AMS were to make a small donation to Haiti for each ballot cast in the AMS executive elections, the decision would involve minimal cost but would likely garner much positive feedback.

The AMS could have considered providing a check box on each online ballot, asking students whether or not they would like a $0.10 donation to Haiti made upon the casting of their ballot. This way, relief efforts could proceed without risking any effect on voters’ motives.

It’s unfortunate a good opportunity was missed here, but both candidate teams’ ingenuity in putting forth this idea leaves us with higher hopes for next year.

All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s)-in-Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Skip to content