New voting system proposed for USAC

The recent proposed structural changes to undergraduate student
government include changes in the voting system that undergraduates
use to elect officials. Proponents of the changes say the new
system will offer greater representation for all students.

The proposed new Undergraduate Students Association Council
constitution, authored by Brian Neesby, would restructure the
council by adding a legislative senate and adopting proportional
representation.

The council currently has three executive officers, three
general representatives and seven commissioners.

Neesby and his supporters have proposed a 20-member senate with
purely legislative functions, in addition to other changes.

Complete details of the proposal have not yet been released.

If Neesby and his supporters meet signature and petition
requirements, the change could be submitted for a student vote in
the spring.

Executive officers and commissioners are currently elected by
majority vote. A simple majority consists of 50 percent plus one
vote. If in the first round of voting, no candidate receives a
majority, the two candidates with the most votes advance to a
runoff election.

Similarly, the three general representative candidates receiving
the largest percentages of the vote are elected.

The proposed changes to USAC would also institute a new voting
system called the Hare System of Proportional Representation, a
system known internationally for its ability to incorporate
minority representation.

In the Hare System, students vote by what is called a single
transferable vote.

Voters rank candidates according to preference, and if their
first-choice candidate does not need additional votes or has been
eliminated, their vote will pass to their second-choice candidate,
and so on.

Minority opinions would supposedly be better represented in
council, as instead of requiring a majority, each candidate needs
only to receive 5 percent of the vote to win a seat on the
senate.

“It’s quite a complicated system,” Neesby
said, “but this is the one that we felt was the most
representative.”

“It makes sure that minority votes are counted to a large
degree, and that they’re represented in the system.
It’s not just winner take all,” he added.

“Another way of looking at (the single transferable vote)
is that it minimizes wasted votes,” said political science
Professor Thomas Schwartz.

As all votes count in a single transferable vote system, a
change could help reverse the trend of low student voter turnout by
encouraging more students to participate in elections.

With the Hare System, “as long as a group has a following,
they will have representation,” Neesby said.

But a change to the Hare System wouldn’t only bring more
diverse representatives. It would also complicate the election
process and nearly double the number of candidates.

Experts remain divided on the effects that a change in the
voting system would have at UCLA.

Political science Professor Barry O’Neill said he would
not advise a change to the single transferable vote system.

He expressed concern that in rare instances, the system can
result in the election of candidates who a large number of
constituents consider only mediocre, passing over candidates that
students have a stronger preference for.

“It’s perverse. It responds sometimes in the
opposite direction of the preferences of the voters,” he
said.

Despite any drawbacks the system may have, it is used to this
day in elections in Ireland, Malta and Australia. Single
transferable vote was once widely used in city council elections
across the United States, where many viewed it as being too
representative.

“Not everyone wanted it to work so fairly. For instance,
it was phased out in New York City in the 1940s when it elected
several communists,” Schwartz said.

Other cities stopped using the system after it elected
minorities to city councils.

“Today, of course, you might want to ensure perfect
representation of all groups within society,” Schwartz said.
“It allows for the representation of groups of various sorts
in society, not just geographic constituents or racial minorities
or income groups or anything like that.”

Supporters of the system stress that groups do not have to be
well organized to have a voice in student government.

“Under the single transferable vote system, people are
free to group themselves any way they want. You don’t have to
have someone leading and coordinating groups to ensure that groups
that are like-minded receive representation,” Schwartz
said.

It is unknown what effect a change in the voting system would
have on the slate system.

Slates, the university equivalent of political parties, are
groups of students with similar ideologies that campaign together
in hopes of gaining seats on council.

“What is likely to happen is that slates will still exist,
but they will have a lesser degree of power,” Neesby
said.

A criticism of the current majoritarian system is that one slate
could win all seats on council, with the support of only half of
campus.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *