NEWS ANALYSIS: Apathy, confusion hinder reform

Each spring, Undergraduate Assembly elections see a number of candidates dedicated to inspiring change and several referenda designed to correct student government ills. But almost every referendum has failed to garner the necessary 20 percent voter turnout, and this year -- despite criticism of the UA's ability to represent students -- all but one incumbent won reelection. Traditionally, few students turn out to vote in UA elections and far fewer are willing to participate in student government. And while most students complain about the problems plaguing the University's government system, all plans to reform the structure in the past few years have failed due to lack of student interest. Some have placed the blame on voter apathy. Others said they feel that students do care but cannot understand the current system or the plans to change it. Last week, College senior and Daily Pennsylvanian columnist Mike Nadel, author of referendum Plan B, said he was disappointed by the apathy that prevented the passage of his plan, blaming the lack of interest on the failures of the outgoing UA. But College senior Graham Robinson, one of the authors of referendum Plan A, said he did not think apathy was as big a problem as students claim. "I think that Penn students are not entirely apathetic [though they may say it that way]," Robinson said. "I do think that most Penn students care about things that are going on, but they are so unhappy with the political system on campus that they are unable to express themselves." Many students explained that they encountered confusion at the polls, saying their first exposure to the plans was the short explanatory blurb written on the ballot itself. Last week, students said the plans were confusing, adding that they found it difficult to vote on them. Outgoing UA Chairperson and College senior Lance Rogers agreed that students did not understand the process or the referenda themselves. "To be totally honest, I don't know if it's just that people didn't care or they didn't know what to do," Rogers said. "When I went to vote, I saw a couple of my friends who asked me what to do," he said. "They weren't familiar with the current structure and thus were unable to notice any differences in the proposed plans." But some students blamed the authors of the referenda for a failure to campaign on their behalf. After publicity drives last spring caused many voters to refuse to vote for any referenda, sponsors said they were afraid to lobby heavily this time. "This year, we didn't do enough to talk about our proposal, I think," Robinson said. "We were reacting to what we saw last year, but in retrospect we should have done more." Nadel, who said in March that his new plan would not be over-publicized because he felt that too much press hurt his referendum last year, said yesterday that the lack of energy behind the plans was a mistake. But the problem could have been in the plans themselves, for they simply did not have the widespread support of the student body. It will take a plan that students feel strongly about to bring them to the polls. Nominations and Elections Committee Vice Chairperson for Elections Ben Goldberger, a College sophomore, said he feels it will take a good plan with a large support base to get the necessary votes. "The 20 percent rule exists to ensure that nothing passes due to a 'snowstorm' minority [when an unrepresentative group of people show up at the polls due to inclement weather or some other reason] and to ensure that any major change to the system has a lot of backing," Goldberger said. "Any plan that passes will have to have the support of the past and current UA, the DP, the Social Planning and Events Committee, the Student Activities Council and the Student Committee on Undergraduate Education, because any one of those groups has the ability to defeat the referendum," he added. Nadel argued that election results show that students want reform. Since 33 percent of voters supported Plan A and 32 percent backed Plan B, Nadel said that a runoff election should be held. Throughout the year, polls have indicated that up to 78 percent of students feel the UA does not adequately represent them. Yet students continue to vote the same people into office. This year, 14 of the 24 seats went to incumbent candidates. According to some, name recognition is the key to incumbent success. As long as someone has already been on the UA, student are likely to be familiar with his name. And it is also irrelevant if the publicity is good or bad because people will often forget the particular issues involved -- but remember the name. Another problem comes from a lack of candidates to choose from. This year only 32 candidates ran for 24 spots. Many feel the UA is not attracting good candidates, causing voters to stay home. Nadel agreed, citing the lack of candidates particularly in the School of Engineering and Applied Science and the Wharton School of Business, where five people ran for four seats. Often students vote for the wrong reasons -- like name familiarity, because they do not have enough information about the candidates. Robinson said that candidates cannot convey their opinions or qualities in a the brief campaign period. Although Nadel opposed Plan A, he agreed that students can not be informed enough to select as many candidates as called for in the current system and often vote for the wrong reasons. "People vote for those who they know, those who they think have nice pictures and those who have neat names," he said.