Elections are over, and Student Council now has a new set of representatives and following this week's run-off election will have a new president. But the controversy surrounding this year's elections will remain, and no matter who is elected, the pitfalls surrounding the entire elections process will persist. Is it frustration with Council or exasperation at the ridiculous finger-pointing that comes with every election that typically convinces at least 50 percent of the student body to forego pausing for 10 seconds to vote online? I'm willing to bet it's a little of both. And until Council makes some major changes not only in how its members are chosen, but also in how they view themselves, mention of "StudCo" will elicit rolling eyes and muttering of "politico" wherever it is heard.
I have a pretty good attention span. But even still, I couldn't name more than two or three candidates for Student Council this year, and the reason I can name those three is because they're friends of mine. I, like most other students, automatically gloss over all the fliers, table tents and chalkings that deface Grounds and grumble about how much nicer Old Cabell would look without someone's name scrawled all over its front entrance.
The purpose for all the ads, of course, is name recognition, because there are no real issues or ideologies at stake in the elections. Don't believe it? What candidate in this year's elections -- or any year's elections, for that matter -- is in favor of harder exams, shorter dining hall or library hours, less parking on Grounds or against improving race relations? A-ha. The "issues" that face the student body are ones dealing primarily with convenience, creature comforts or the social scene; in other words, not activities relevant to actual platforms.
Students really aren't presented with any appreciable policy choices between the candidates -- which is why it's hard to believe that it actually matters which candidates you choose on election day. None of the candidates, for any office, will ever have any impact on, say, future tuition increases, faculty hiring or affirmative action -- that is, on issues that matter. Much like your high school's Prom king and queen race, Council elections are primarily a matter of which candidate can get more of their friends to vote for him or her. And that brings us to the next problem.
The fact is that no matter how popular Daisy Lundy, Ed Hallen or Brad Harrison might be, collectively they still don't know most of the student body they're attempting to represent. Such is the nature of a relatively large school. So the way they persuade the unknown masses to vote for them is to convince organizations to endorse them, thus implying that members of those organizations and their sympathizers will vote accordingly.
But as we know, there aren't any substantive issues at stake. Regardless of which candidate's personal views are more in line with the endorsing organization's, those opinions will have few (if any) impact on what Council does. It's hard to believe that, for example, Sarah Outten and Caroline Young have divergent ideas on how the Second-Year Class Vice Presidency should be handled. So what do organizations base their endorsements on? It probably depends upon who you ask, but it certainly appears to be little more than a popularity contest. We know that the IFC, the Coalition, the University Democrats, etc. will, first and foremost, sponsor candidates who are members of their own organizations and secondarily, those candidates with more friends in the organization's leadership. They'll conduct interviews, but it's hard to believe these boil down to anything besides an impromptu speaking contest and a promise for "support," whatever that may mean.
For those who actually vote for every race, rather than voting for only the people they know personally and skipping everything else (like me), endorsements might increase turnout on relatively low-profile races like Second-Year Vice President or for Architecture School Honor Committee representative. Of course, this voting strategy isn't much better than voting completely randomly by interpreting the movements of a squirrel one might see outside the window.
As a solution, I would point out that the otherwise abysmally mediocre University of Maryland at College Park (where I transferred from) has a wonderful system -- political parties. Yes, they actually form parties, and just about every candidate joins one. They have "party platforms" and an option on the voting screen for the student to vote a straight party ticket. Switching to such a system might add a little legitimacy to Council elections in the future and increase turnout. But candidates-elect, take note: Remember who you are. Maintain some perspective. And keep in mind that Council elections are, as a rule, silly.
(Blair Reeves is a Cavalier Daily viewpoint writer.)
Read More
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | YesterdayInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
SHRAUGER: McIntire’s three-year model limits opportunities for first-year students
By Alex Shrauger | 4 days agoBy pigeonholing students into commerce so early, the University violates its own mission of providing a holistic education that produces students capable of succeeding in a variety of fields.
