As undergraduate student government election season approaches, there are several positive changes being made to the elections process to make it both more fair and efficient.
But there are still some major problems with the way elections on campus are handled, and more changes could be made.
With the Undergraduate Students Association Council election process as it is, slates have become insular and repetitive with their ideas and campaign goals ““ they run on the same issues and never really accomplish any of their goals quite how they explain them in the campaign.
What the student body really needs is an infusion of outside ideas and fresh perspectives, and the only way this is going to happen is if independent candidates, those students who run but usually do not participate in one of the USAC offices, have more of a chance of winning.
It’s almost unavoidable that candidates running under a slate ““ which is essentially a campus political party ““ will have an advantage over the independent candidates.
Candidates running with slates can pool their money and create fliers, T-shirts and other ways to advertise their candidates and group issues.
If five students on a slate each raise $1,000, they all effectively have a campaigning budget of $5,000. An independent candidate would have to raise $5,000 to compete.
In the current system, there is a voluntary spending cap candidates can sign up for, but during last year’s elections there were virtually no volunteers.
Not surprisingly, last year there were candidates who raised and spent significantly more money on their campaigns than their peers, and in the past, people have spent as much as $20,000.
This board would like to see a mandatory spending cap on a sliding scale based on the office students run for.
Candidates running for the president and vice president positions should have the highest cap, something reasonable, around $1,200.
Candidates running for a commissioner position should have a lower cap, close to $1,000, and candidates running for general representative positions should have the lowest cap.
This would go a long way toward equalizing the elections for many candidates, especially between the slates.
Candidates running with a slate also have nonfinancial advantages in that they have many other candidates and experienced council members to guide them, informing them of rules they must follow and how they should conduct themselves during the election.
Another step that should be taken to equalize the process is a seminar that would be conducted by the Elections Board to introduce new candidates to all of the intricate rules regarding elections.
As is, independent candidates face a severe disadvantage because the rules governing elections are muddled and confusing, often causing candidates to be penalized for violating rules they do not understand.
USAC elections are simply lacking the kind of competition that fosters creativity because they are too caught up in their own politics.
The only recent, truly original idea was when Slate Refund proposed refunding student fees in last year’s election. But with an entire slate running behind that platform and raising thousands of dollars, they have no seats on council.