I am writing in response to last Monday’s lead editorial (“Without Representation,” Jan. 26) which advocated the new double voting procedure proposed by the University Board of Elections this year. You blithely dismiss the problems created by allowing some students to have a greater impact on the outcome of student elections than others.
You correctly state that “at first glance this change may seem to grant these students twice the representation as others,” which would be the case, though you do not seem to be perturbed by this undemocratic change nor do you discuss some of the potential inequities.
Why single out just these two schools? If it’s acceptable for some people to vote twice because they will be in a different school next year, why not expand this to include students accepted to the University’s Law, Medical and other graduate schools?
True we would have a series of fractured elections over an extended period of time, but that doesn’t seem to pose a problem for you.
If the target of this scheme is to allow double voting for those accepted into a school in which they will be enrolled next semester, it also seems deficient, as it seems to include current second- and third-years who are in the College and will eventually be in the Curry School but will continue to be enrolled in the College throughout the entire period for which this voting will have effect.
By splitting elections over multiple phases the UBE will require students currently enrolled in Batten and Curry, but not the College, to vote on two separate occasions: the first to vote for referenda and student council executive positions, and the second the following week to vote for Honor, University Judiciary Committee, Student Council and Class Council positions. Anytime you increase barriers to voting, the result is a decrease in turnout when the goal of any reform should be to increase turnout and participation.
For people who are enrolled in the College, where elections are frequently close, determining whether a few hundred students can vote in these elections could make a huge difference in their outcome. If these students should be voting in their new schools then should they really be able to play a potentially pivotal role in determining officers from the College?
This change, which has not been widely announced or discussed, seems to have the potential to greatly impact the upcoming elections by allowing for some privileged students to have twice as much say in University-wide bodies (Honor, UJC, Student Council representatives) with little regard for the other consequences of such a shift.
Neal Fox
CLAS IV
Read More
LETTER: Misunderstanding the Honor Committee’s mental health procedures
By Seamus Oliver and Alexander Church | March 15, 2024We recognize that the Honor process can be stressful and that any student may benefit from support, regardless of an underlying health condition.
LETTER: Mischaracterizing a tangled war
By Michael Liebermann | February 2, 2024We should not address this war with blind idealism. We should address it, instead, with nuance and care.
P.U.M.P.K.I.N. SOCIETY: Happy Halloween 2023
By P.U.M.P.K.I.N. Society | October 31, 2023The P.U.M.P.K.I.N. Society Recognizes Individuals Who Enrich The University Community Through Their Silent And Selfless Service.
