UB's record on recent elections is pitiful. Beginning this spring with the Student Wide Judiciary's involvement in the undergraduate Student Association executive board elections and continuing with the Graduate Student Association's recently documented inability to hold an election without controversy, the University Council's long-overdue election is only one more example of an ongoing problem. Such a problem cannot be solved by voiding each election that goes awry and hoping the mulligan they take will solve the issue. A radical solution is needed.
UB's student governments need a single election oversight body to prevent the problems that seem to plague the selection of student representatives. Last spring, the University Council Representative Elections Committee upheld the April's disputed election results, only to overturn them in August after the SWJ asked for a final resolution on the matter. The two original candidates have since dropped out of the race, leaving only one candidate vying for the student position of the council. In last year's SA elections, problems included charges of libel and one candidate's absence at a mandatory meeting, to name a few. GSA's election was likewise fraught with controversy over alleged vote bribes, misuse of GSA property and the integrity of the online voting system. The poor elections record exposes the need for a more comprehensive, professional system of identifying and redressing irregularities.
A unified election oversight committee should consist of members appointed by the various student governments who would be able to check each other, as well as to provide representation for each group of students. The committee would perform the functions currently undertaken by the separate committees: staffing the polling booths, insuring compliance with election bylaws and regulations, and mediating disputes between parties to the election process. As part of their regulatory function, they would have an advisor, preferably with some legal training, to oversee that the actions taken by the committee itself and the governments whose elections they supervise are within statutory regulations and university guidelines. The advisor should not be given a vote; such an action would contradict the tradition of student-run elections. Rather, the advisor could provide students, many of whom are understandably unfamiliar with administering elections, much-needed advice and guidance.
In addition to standardizing election procedures, the first act of this university-wide elections committee should be to synchronize election days as much as possible. This would serve three purposes. First, if there is one "election day" or "election week," standard for each year, it is more likely that students will turn out to vote - an important consideration in the face of repeatedly low-turnout elections. Currently, when there is an election every other week, it is difficult to rally student interest. Second, synchronized elections would allow for increased advertising and consolidated party efforts, leading to election enthusiasm. If students can attach a candidate or party's platform to a visual image, they are more likely to care about the election. The third major benefit to consolidated elections is preventing individuals from running simultaneously for more than one position. Candidates are not as likely to seek multiple seats if they have to run for two positions at once, and more individuals running means that more individuals can be elected, both increasing participation in student government and providing more comprehensive representation.
Finally, this new committee should see to it that South Campus be given a polling place. Many students that live on South Campus or in the University Heights district are left out of the electoral process when the Student Union is the only election venue. The UB administration has continually said that it wants to make Harriman Hall the Student Union of South Campus. Should this become reality, they ought to at least have polling facilities open for students there.
Individual, ad hoc elections committees appointed by parties with a vested stake in election outcomes clearly cannot accomplish these goals. Often, they are rife with conflicts of interest and cannot be a reliable authority on proper campaign and election procedure. A university-wide elections committee, with a competent, interested advisor at the helm, would be a prudent step in the right direction. Elections would be conducted professionally and appropriately, more students would be encouraged to vote, and less resume padding could occur from students more interested in title acquisition than service to the university and student body.
Photo: Courtesy of Laron Fomby
