The AMS can’t claim to represent students if its leaders never have to speak to them.
On Sept. 29, the AMS revised its Election Policy, rescinding the requirement for executive candidates to collect 125 student nomination signatures to validate their candidacy. The new procedure requires candidates to be ratified through a five-minute pitch to the AMS Assembly.
The decision was supposedly made to eliminate social barriers associated with running for an AMS executive position; however, it only serves to perpetuate internal biases further and removes the need for candidates to interact with their potential constituency.
Nomination signatures are an important element of student democracy. Students don’t just mindlessly sign nomination forms; instead, they inquire about a candidate and their platform. Now, it’s easy for candidates to be validated internally, which has far worse implications for bias than a signatory minimum.
You shouldn’t be a student representative if you can’t generate support for your platform among the student body. The nomination process isn’t about popularity; it’s about garnering recognition and making connections with the student body—all essential experiences for a potential leader.
AMS President Jana Amer claims the new ratification process will force candidates to come prepared with a platform; however, generating signatures without perpetuating an internal bias. Amer claims that the new system will ensure student leaders are extroverted—a quality that isn’t necessary or better proven through the new process.
The change was proposed by the Elections Policy Review Committee, formed by student leaders and members from the AMS’s civics affairs team and judicial team, and passed by the AMS Assembly. The biggest issue with the new nomination process only further isolates the AMS from the student body.
Scrapping nomination signatures doesn’t come as a surprise, as the number already dropped from 300 to 125 between 2024-25. However, finding signatories shouldn’t be AMS’s concern; it should be finding quality candidates. In last year’s election cycle, many candidates for executive faculty positions ran uncontested, and only two candidates ran for President. Last year’s executive team only had 20.4 per cent voter turnout—a number that should be of concern in student politics.
Forcing candidates to interact with the student body outside of the AMS might garner some recognition and inspire more students to run in the future.
If the AMS wants to make elections more accessible, it should start by strengthening the connection between potential student leaders and their future constituents. Eliminating nomination signatures makes it easier to run, while also making it easier to ignore the student body.
—Journal Editorial Board
Tags
AMS, ASM nominations, student elections, student government
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 eic@queensjournal.ca.