After over an hour of heated debate, the Undergraduate Students
Association Council approved the implementation of online voting
for the spring 2003 general elections at their meeting Tuesday
night.
Following the special online referendum election in October that
drew more voters than the past two general elections, USAC approved
the implementation of online voting via the MyUCLA Web site. USAC
also called for the Elections Board to present a revised election
code and specific strategies of implementation by fifth week of
winter quarter.
Despite council concerns about security and vagueness, the
proposal was approved with a 10-0-2 vote.
External Vice President Chris Neal and Academics Affairs
Commissioner Chris Diaz abstained from voting on the proposal.
Due to the lack of a specific voting strategy, Neal and Diaz
said they felt uncomfortable voting on the proposal.
“We are not saying we don’t want online voting, we
just want something more specific,” Diaz said.
Neal suggested the council vote to implement online voting but
to use it only at specific locations on campus.
But E-board Chairman Chris Abraham contested that this would
reduce student accessibility provided by the ability to vote online
from any location.
Students abroad wouldn’t be able to vote in the elections,
Abraham said.
“(Neal) wouldn’t be able to vote if the elections
took place when he was on a trip,” Abraham said, referring to
the Neal’s recent trip to Ghana.
Abraham said the E-board based their recommendation on the fact
that online voting would be the most cost-effective, secure and
inclusive method of voting for undergraduates.
Due to BruinCard office requests that future USAC elections have
all polling locations permanently wired, costs under the paper
ballot system would exceed $50,000, according to statistics in
literature presented to USAC by the E-board.
The statistics showed that voting through MyUCLA would cost five
times less than a paper ballot system.
The money saved in an Internet vote compared to a paper-ballot
vote would be tremendous, Abraham said.
“It is my responsibility to use student funds most
efficiently,” he said. “Its just too good to pass
up.”
In addition to reduced costs, online voting would be more
convenient for students, E-board Adviser Mike Cohn said.
A breakdown of the referendum vote distribution showed that a
large percentage of students voted during the hours that
paper-ballot voting would not be available ““ specifically
between the hours of 5 p.m. and 8 a.m.
But some council members expressed concern about students’
rights of privacy and the issue of block voting.
Block voting had not been an issue in the previous online
election, Abraham said. He pointed out that 88 percent of the votes
were cast by individuals each using different computers.
Security and privacy are not a major issues either, Cohn
said.
MyUCLA already has high security standards dealing with grades,
he said.
“(MyUCLA) is a product of the UCLA community, and they
want to serve us well,” he said.
Cohn added that online voting is not any less private than the
way students traditionally vote, pointing out that through the
paper-ballot system, students vote on a table surrounded by other
students and friends.
The motion that was passed ““ to approve online voting
while placing a time restraint on the E-board ““ was suggested
by General Representative Adam Harmetz.
“It was a combination of what the council was feeling at
the time and what the E-board wanted to do,” Harmetz
said.
Neal still had reservations about the motion after the
meeting.
“I still think there’s a lot of vagueness,”
Neal said.
He said he still wanted all council members with concerns to be
a proactive part of the implementation process.
But other council members were satisfied with the outcome.
“We gave the E-board the direction that was asked for and
was needed,” Harmetz said.