THE HEADLINES on today's paper could read "Dewey Defeats Truman" or "Truman Defeats Dewey" regarding the recently completed student elections, but for the vast majority of the student body, the results border on triviality. Life will go on exactly as it has for the previous months of the school year (except for a few disappointed souls, who will be depressed by their defeat). According to Steve Yang, chair of the University Board of Elections, most students vote to support student self-governance (as well as to voice their opinions on referendums). Despite this, for many, student self-governance remains an ethereal concept. It exists in a sort of constant equilibrium; the parts that compose it change with relatively little impact on the daily life of students. Little distinguishes one candidate from another, as there are few terribly salient issues for students to vote on regarding candidates. Therefore, students have little incentive to vote in University elections.
Before proceeding, it should be understood that the goal of this column is not to endorse or criticize specific candidates, nor to point out flaws in the electoral system at the University, but rather to understand underlying problems of our community.
After reading the information provided by candidates both on the University Board of Elections website and on their own personal websites, two problems become immediately obvious. The first is a general vagueness of the candidate's goals. Many candidates provide only University buzzwords as issues that they wish to see resolved or developed: issues such as racism or diversity, and the omnipresent "transparency" that each candidate hopes to bestow on the University community. Laying aside whether or not candidates can solve these problems, many of the solutions they provide go no further than suggesting a forum for investigation.Vagueness by candidates leaves the voter with little tangible evidence to go on in determining where to cast his or her ballot.
This poses a problem, because for students taking the electoral process seriously, information about the candidates plays a crucial role in determining for whom they will cast their vote. Having perused the information, however, the problem of congruency arises. Many of the candidates provide the same issues as part of their platforms without too much difference in how to deal with them. This makes it difficult to differentiate one from another, and the voter must rely on either personal knowledge of a candidate or choose one at random (hardly a legitimate electoral practice).
Of the six candidates for Student Council president, for example, four mention transparency or something similar prominently in their platform. Three mention CIO reform; another three mention safety (two discuss a sort of community watch as a fundraiser for CIOs);two mention diversity. It almost feels as if the candidates want to slowly move in a direction but are unsure how to do so in a meaningful way.
This brings us to another issue that hounds candidates for University positions. Through no fault of their own, their platforms must be seen by those voting as too vague, too ambitious, or trivial. If they promise action on diversity, they cannot promise a perfect solution without being seen as promising the moon to get elected. By the same token, if they promise only discussion, this seems too nebulous a solution to the problem. If a candidate promises to increase transparency, promising to send out extra e-mails and place LCD screens in the dining halls seems trivial (and expensive).
While in no way do I mean to insult or harass those individuals who offer to sacrifice their time and energy to help student life around grounds, we ought to consider how we elect them. What are we looking for? How can we make sure that it isn't a mere popularity contest, but rather that the candidate with the best ideas wins? Two answers emerge. Read as much as you can about each candidate, and if you have questions, contact them directly. This might be difficult, given many student candidates neglected to turn up for a debate, but it is at least worth a try. Get involved, ask questions, and put the student back in student self-governance.
Robby Colby's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at rcolby@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Donald Trump will be a threat to student loan forgiveness
By Ryan Williams | 11 hours agoTo be sure, this is not a problem of the University’s making. Nevertheless, understanding the uncertainty of financial accessibility in education, the University must step up to the plate.
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 5 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 6 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
