“Slate campaigning” is a term many NAIT students either don’t understand or just ignore, having no practical effect on their daily student life. But for those who do know what it means, particularly those who have run for any NAITSA elective office in recent years, the term is regarded with a measure of seriousness.
There is a reason for this. During the 2024 NAITSA Executive Council (EC) elections, allegations of slate campaigning cast a shadow on then-VP Internal Travis Luscombe’s election as NAITSA President. This led to a series of events culminating in his eventual removal as both VP Internal and President-elect.
NAITSA’s Official Bylaws define slate campaigning as the following:
“7.14.8. Slate campaigning, which is strictly prohibited, shall be defined as 2 or more candidates running for different positions, who gain an electoral advantage through one of the following actions:
- Publicly endorsing another candidate; and
- Sharing of election posters and promotional material.
- Presenting to potential voters together.”
A casual reading of the text makes one ask: What exactly is wrong with those three bullet points? Expressing support for another candidate running for a different position hardly seems like it would result in an unfair advantage for either candidate. If anything, it would even show voters which candidates have similar platforms. It can also show which pairs or groups among the candidates could work well together.
The ban on slate campaigning appears to be rooted in a tradition of non-partisanship at the local government level that characterizes much of Anglophone Canada and parts of the United States. This reflects the historical perception that municipalities and other lower levels of government are more vulnerable to corruption and mismanagement when political parties exercise undue power and influence.
While slates/slate campaigning and political parties appear to behave the same way in elections, the two are different. Slates are based on a common stand on an issue, while parties are established along ideological lines. Edmonton actually allows the former and, until recently, has disallowed the latter.
In a slate-less election, anyone who runs for office is not only an independent candidate by consequence but is also expected to exercise independence of thought should they win. It’s not hard to see why this is important in the NAITSA Executive Council (EC). The work of each individual EC member has a level of detail and complexity that an ordinary student may not have the time nor the patience to scrutinize for irregularities. EC members therefore have an implied responsibility to keep each other honest by constantly checking if their colleagues’ actions and decisions are not deceitful.
A winning candidate seen as owing their election to the endorsement of another candidate (especially a more popular one) will naturally have their independence questioned. In a worst-case scenario, all four elected EC members are from the same slate, and they could either collude to do something unethical or cover up for a colleague who does.
Even in a case where everyone is acting in good faith, the psychological phenomenon of group think is more likely to occur in an EC composed of a single slate, as opposed to one that has at least one independent member willing to ask the right questions.
In short, EC members should work to advance the interests of their constituents (i.e., the NAIT student body) alone, and no one else’s. An EC member who was part of a campaign slate might give rise to doubts on whose interests they really serve.
Now, the main flaw to this ban is that there is nothing stopping candidates from putting on a show of acting independent during the campaign period and then colluding after they win an election. In this case, it no longer is an election issue but an administrative one. As part of NAITSA’s internal checks and balances, the Senate has some oversight powers in relation to the EC. There is also the Nugget (funded by NAITSA but having editorial independence), whose reporters keep an eye on the fiscal and administrative responsibility of not only the EC, but the entirety of NAITSA and even NAIT itself.
Interestingly, there appears to be no consensus on the matter of slate campaigning among post-secondary student associations in Edmonton. NAITSA’s bylaws are by far the strictest against slate campaigning. The University of Alberta Students’ Union (UASU) allows slates subject to certain conditions that are intended to minimize unfair advantages. On the other hand, the election bylaws of the students’ associations of Concordia University of Edmonton, MacEwan University and NorQuest College are silent on slates but contain some conditions similar to UASU.
Looking at the bigger picture, things are changing at the local government level. The United Conservative Party-led provincial government has enacted Bill 20, which took effect Oct. 31, 2025. This law now formally allows political parties in Edmonton and Calgary at the municipal level, effectively eroding the long-standing non-partisanship that has characterized Alberta local politics since the 1970s.
Notably, in consultations prior to Bill 20, the former mayors of Edmonton and Calgary both expressed objections to the introduction of parties in municipal politics. This objection is shared by 70 per cent of Alberta residents surveyed.
It would appear that, at least on a cultural level, NAITSA’s ban on slate campaigning reflects the majority of the public’s attitudes on elections.
Feature image graphic by Alleah Boisvert
