STUDENT self-governance here at Mr. Jefferson's University dodged a huge bullet in this month's elections. A little-understood referendum on the honor system known as the "consensus" clause failed by less than half a percent, and in doing so just barely kept the oft-debated single sanction from becoming effectively un-debatable. As we consider how this travesty of democracy almost found legitimacy, our attention should turn to the vehicle it rode to the ballot: the referendum. Often heralded as direct student participation in democracy at its best, the referendum has in reality become an often misused and potentially disastrous tool that should have no place in making concrete policy decisions. That's because most referenda receive so little legitimate discussion that most members of the voting public have literally no idea what they are voting for. Worse, when referenda that do have significant consequences for the entire University community come along, the only debate consists entirely of special interest advertising.
Referenda are useful for gauging public opinion on broad, well-known topics on which just about anyone could furnish a reasoned opinion. In this capacity they serve as valuable guides for our governing bodies. This past election contained examples of this nature, such as the question asking, "Should the Honor Committee seek alternatives to the single sanction?" This straightforward and simple query acts essentially as a public opinion poll, and it provides a reasonable base for the Honor Committee to build policy upon. Referenda also come in handy when a matter is simple enough to be settled by a simple majority vote. This year's Coke or Pepsi referendum provides a good example. There is little merit in having a major public debate to discern the superior soft drink, so a majority vote on a referendum provides an undemanding solution to the dilemma.
But there's the rub.We couldn't have a major public debate on a referendum when we really needed one, not the way the system is currently tooled. In the hustle and bustle of student elections, the candidates dominate the public's attention, as is acceptable considering the tremendous impact these individuals will have on the University community. Consequently, the referenda often slip under the radar. When it comes time to vote, the best most students can do is make an uninformed opinion based on the most interesting flyer they saw that day.
The proponents of the consensus clause took advantage of this scenario to try to sneak by a referendum that would have ended all meaningful debate on single sanction reform. The only reason this referendum came close to passage was a combination of confusingly benign wording and a despicably misleading flyer campaign that stretched the truth to the limit. Consequently, many of the people who voted for the consensus clause had no idea what it would have done. It seems that every University student has at least one friend who was confused by the referendum. The fact that in the same election the other referendum on single sanction reform got nearly 60 percent of the vote indicates that such opinions are not isolated.
The solution to this predicament is to modify the process so that referenda assist our representatives in performing their duties rather than hindering them. If we cannot produce a meaningful public debate on complex issues without resorting to flat-out deceit, then perhaps such problems should be left to those we elected to solve them. For referenda to convey public opinion to our leaders in office is one thing; for them to become the underhanded instruments of special interest groups is entirely something else and completely unacceptable for a community that claims to put such a high value on integrity and honor. The groups promoting the consensus clause warned of small minorities making decisions for the entire community, and yet that is just what they planned to do themselves. If referenda continue to be abused in this manner, then we must protect the people from themselves by having the force removed from their referenda when complex policy matters are at stake.
Sound undemocratic? I can think of at least one person who wouldn't think so. Mr. Jefferson would have been nothing short of horrified at the notion of ruling by referenda because he believed that such methods of resolving debates easily fall prey to exactly the kind of deception that nearly succeeded here so recently.He would trust us to choose our leaders and govern ourselves accordingly.He would not, however, trust us to solve all the complex problems of student government through uninformed groupthink, and neither should we.
A.J. Kornblith is a Cavalier Daily Viewpoint Writer.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 11 hours agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 2 days agoInstead 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 | 3 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.
