Referendum didn't deliver all it promised

Though debate about the Undergraduate Assembly referendum continued for months last fall, the bill’s opponents may not have much to worry about.

The reform created the directly elected positions of president and vice president and intended to increase student engagement, but some student government leaders are questioning its impact in light of election results.

Proponents claim the positions would encourage so-called “outsider” candidates, but president-elect Matt Amalfitano, a College junior, is not an outsider.

Amalfitano has served on the UA for three years. Most recently, he held the position of vice chairman for external affairs — which was designed to be the UA’s “third-in-command,” according to 2006 College graduate and former UA Chairwoman Rachel Hirsch, who created the title when she was chairwoman herself.

In addition to Amalfitano, all other candidates had previous UA experience.

College junior and UA associate member Grant Dubler, Amalfitano’s challenger, had served on the UA for two years, and all vice presidential candidates were UA members.

“It’s still difficult for students not involved in student government to jump into the race,” Dubler said, as the endorsement process creates “an inherent advantage for an insider … there is a level of trust” between experienced candidates and organizations that endorse them.

Because he studied in Washington, D.C. last semester, Dubler said, he imagined a lot of endorsers “were comfortable with Matt’s approach because it had worked for them in the past. I was untested.”

“If I couldn’t win from my position,” Dubler added. “I don’t know how someone with a legitimate outsider position could have won.”

UA Chairman Alec Webley, a College junior, agreed the lack of external candidates was “not surprising … No one has a clue what these positions are.”

However, according to Commission on Presidential Debates Chairwoman Natalie Vernon, a College senior, the candidates’ UA experience is beside the point.

“I don’t think the whole point was [candidates] couldn’t be in the UA,” she said, explaining that at peer universities, strong outsider candidates typically emerge only once every five years.

According to UA alumni who opposed the referendum, Amalfitano’s election is actually a promising sign.

Jason Karsh, a 2008 College graduate and former UA chairman who criticized the resolution’s openness to outsiders, said he is glad the president-elect is experienced.

At the same time, he added, there is still a “dangerous possibility” that an unqualified candidate could win a future election.

Another promise of the referendum — a surge of student engagement — has yet to be fully realized. Voter turnout was 49.03 percent this year, slightly lower than last year’s rate.

According to Vice Chairwoman of the Nominations and Elections Committee Patricia Liu, a Wharton senior, a “technical” issue obscures the fact that more students voted this year than last year. Still, the numbers fell short of Liu’s “personal goal” of 55 percent.

“We were promised huge student interest,” Webley said, but “this did not deliver in terms of increasing interest in student government.”

Furthermore, Webley said, the statistics show that students are still relatively unengaged in the UA races.

The freshman class — whose presidential race was highly contested — had the highest individual turnout, while the sophomore class — whose race was uncontested — had the lowest.

“More people are gossiping about Jonathon Youshaei and IvyGate than the UA president,” Webley said.

This year’s turnout, Karsh noted, is a reminder “that it’s not that simple of an equation. It’s not like you have a public election and suddenly people are interested.”

Dubler agreed that this year’s turnout shows “this is not the end of the game, it’s only the beginning.”

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.