On Tuesday night, I drafted an article critiquing majority-rule democracy in the context of the recent SGA election. I asked questions such as: how can majority-rule democracy ever hope to represent the minority, and therefore represent the whole, when it’s explicitly in the interest of the majority? And, doesn’t this form of democracy just consistently reproduce historical power dynamics in “leadership”?
In writing that piece, I did a little research to figure out just how the ballots are counted here, only to find that information was virtually non-existent. I was hoping to explain how putting a second or third choice takes away numerical strength from your first choice, but in looking through the bylaws, no information on the counting system used by SGA could be found. So, I followed their suggestion, and contacted the Chief of Communications, Sarah Bradford ’15, for more information.
After two days of conversations among SGA representatives, the Senior Web Developer and students-at-large, it was finally established that this year’s election was based on a factor-count in which first choice selections were given five points, second-choice was given three and third choice was given one.
I urge you to ask yourself: Did you know how this worked when you were voting?
Many students, and candidates themselves did not. Some students didn’t put second and third choice candidates in fear of that taking away strength from their favorite. Others put multiple names, thinking they would all get equal points. Others thought second and third choice didn’t even count—they didn’t last year! And still others thought second and third choice were only used in the case of a run-off election.
This is voter misinformation. This is not democracy and this is not transparency.
I have to admit that the SGA Assembly has done an excellent job acknowledging these issues and agreeing to simplify the system and better inform voters for future elections.
However, if we can agree that these elections were problematic, and agree that they need to be changed, it would be contradictory to say this past election was okay. There is still time to fix that. We need to revote.
SGA is our legitimate voice as students. We need to know that SGA represents our interests. The revote may well produce the same results, which would be great, reinforcing the validity of the elections. But considering that four elections came down to a difference of just a few points, a common understanding of the election process could have a genuine impact on election results.
This past semester, we’ve learned to celebrate student agency and critique shared governance. This is our chance to assert our agency, to say that shared governance matters, and for our voices to be represented. The election has currently been “suspended” and the SGA Assembly will be voting this Thursday on whether or not to invalidate the election and do a revote. Therefore, I urge you to talk to your house senator and class president about your desire on the issue, whether you think a revote is necessary or not. A simple email will suffice. Or come to the meeting in Ernst on Thursday at 7:15 to speak during Open Forum or support your peers. •
