IN AMERICAN politics, we have come to bemoan election season. On the federal level, it rolls around every two years, bringing the actual work of governance to a grinding halt. Most races are either already in full swing or rapidly gaining speed despite the fact that the election is nine months away, and speculation on the races by the media has been going on for months. Nonetheless, the U.S. election cycle, while it may be tiresome to sit through, gets the job done. The necessary information is out there for the public to find and the long campaign gives citizens plenty of time to develop their views of the candidates.
The same, however, cannot be said of our own student elections here at the University. In a period of a little over a week, students are expected to glean enough information about the candidates from the few scant sources of news there are on grounds, and most of them respond to this challenge with their silence. Turnout in this year's spring election stood at 28 percent, and not even five percent of eligible voters turned out for the Fall 2005 election. For a school that professes to place such a high value on the authority and independence of its bodies of student government, these numbers should be a source of concern. While the University Board of Elections has done a fine job of reforming the elections process in the few short years it has been in existence, work remains to be done.
Central focus should be placed on the current election calendar. The period from the first information session for potential candidates to the day the polls close lasts about four weeks. Petitions to place candidates on the ballot, however, can be submitted as late as the day before the polls open and many candidates jump in at the last minute because they have little motivation to do otherwise.
There are two earlier deadlines for petitions, the first of which allows candidates to be endorsed by student groups and the latter makes them eligible to participate in the debates. Certain groups' endorsements carry a fair amount of weight due to the size of these groups' memberships. The debates, however, have been largely a joke. Poor advertising and the fact that each set of elected positions (Student Council, Honor, UJC, etc.) only gets one shot at a debate have lead to dismal turnout. Once candidates have missed the filing deadline for endorsements, there is little incentive to register before the last minute. The image of the debates as being meaningless was only exacerbated this year by the fact that UJC debate was canceled because most of the candidates had other obligations that night.
In the end, then, most students will never see the candidates or read more than a few lines about them on flyers or in this paper. Candidates try to make their names as visible as possible in the short time they have, focusing on eye-catching flyers and extensive chalking rather than actually engaging in the meat of campaigning: talking with voters. The voting guides offered by both the UBE and The Cavalier Daily are helpful to the committed voter, but the average student will just see several pages of jargon they don't want to read.
All the elements I have mentioned contribute to form a general sense of apathy among many eligible voters, and many more that feel like they should vote don't do so because they don't feel informed about the candidates. A solution is to extend the campaign season and give the candidates a better chance to make an impression on the community. An essential element is having more forums for candidates to discuss their positions with the voters and bringing those forums to the voters rather than making the voters come to them. Debates could be hosted not only in Newcomb Hall but in the First Year Dorms areas or out on Rugby Road, and they need to be far more aggressively advertised.
In addition, candidates should be encouraged to begin their campaigning earlier, and this can be put into effect by moving up the filing deadlines. Coupled with this move should be a greater emphasis on getting candidates to get out on their own to meet potential voters. Sara Anderson, the UBE chair, said, "It's up to the candidates to take the initiative" as far as deciding how to run their campaigns. But most have chosen the quick and easy path that works best in such a short campaign. If improvements to the process are to be made they will have to come from the UBE.
These changes will not be easy and they will certainly require more work on the behalf of the UBE and the candidates.But the payoff will be worth it --a better informed electorate that is not only capable of making better choices but feels empowered to do so.
A.J. Kornblith's column appears Wednesdays in the Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at akornblith@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
BURSTEIN: Federal workforce cuts target Virginia — and Youngkin’s response falls short
By Carly Burstein | 3 days agoForcing employees to choose between uprooting their families or losing their livelihoods is not just callous — it is economically reckless.
HUYNH: Virginia’s proposed ‘whippets’ law is laughable
By Viet Huynh | 3 days agoAs people continue to be harmed by nitrous oxide abuse, Virginians will see this new law as the ineffective, ultimately harmful policy that it is.
EDITORIAL: We can demand more of our university presidents
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoWe hope for greater transparency because for the principles of solidarity in this statement to be enacted and effective, stakeholders must be treated as partners in resistance.
