Charges of libel, voter fraud, bribery and even overturned election results have given UB's student election process somewhat of a black eye in recent months. The problems may be part and parcel of a larger sense of student apathy in both the democratic process due to a sense of disenfranchisement (shades of Decision 2000?) and an inability to connect student government to anything tenable.
The issue recently reached a head when a victorious candidate of last spring's Graduate Student Association elections was accused of trading merchandise for person numbers with the purpose of manipulating online voting. The GSA election results were overturned and a re-vote ordered. The resulting investigation has come to the point that the GSA has retained a private attorney as an impartial analyst of the situation.
The GSA's experiment with online voting is now being questioned. The idea behind catering to students who do not live on or near campus is one that is particularly attractive, especially to graduate students. The problem with this idea is now readily apparent - it is too easy to manipulate the system. While convenient for students who do not have to travel to the Student Union, it allows for vote packing, bribery, coercion and, in some instances, identity theft. It is na??ve to expect that these problems will not arise and prudent to expect that they do.
More than likely, the problem stems from the consistently low voter turnout. How, then, to combat voter apathy? Certainly advertising will help draw people to the polls, and as the saying goes, nothing attracts a crowd like a crowd. The lack of advertising for last year's University Council elections was a major factor in the low voter turnout. Coupled with the late drafting of University Council Election Rules and Regulations, as well as poor planning on the part of election officials, the UC election was doomed from the start.
The election committees and candidates must be held responsible for campaign behavior and they also must actively fight the torpor that grips the student body when it comes to elections. The problem, however, keeps returning, in a vicious cycle where student apathy encourages the uninspiring behavior of the elected officials, and where the uninspiring behavior of elected officials propagates the apathy of the student voter.
What students fail to recognize is that their money funds these elections. Furthermore, it is in their interest to not only keep abreast of the issues at hand and formulate informed opinions, but to vote out officials who would abuse their power, use it to further unproductive ends or wear their positions as medals and do nothing at all.
Governmental organizations like the undergraduate and graduate Student Associations or the University Council can do themselves and the university a great service if they increase their own visibility among students. The SA and the GSA should make it known that their influence derives primarily from their funding - that is, the students' fees - and if students are concerned about the use of their money, they have a responsibility to uphold democratic process.
There is a striking irony in a situation where discontent is the order of the day, yet those discontented do not exercise the rights given them to change their reality. The failure of student governments to cause a stir when they either succeed or fall short is symptomatic of this reality. If students want leaders to recognize accountability to their constituents, the students must shrug off the mantle of apathy and take a more active role in the oversight of their representatives.
