COLUMN: Making student voting matter

From Edward Sherwin's, "The Lower Frequencies," Fall '00 From Edward Sherwin's, "The Lower Frequencies," Fall '00Hear that giant yawning sound around campus?From Edward Sherwin's, "The Lower Frequencies," Fall '00Hear that giant yawning sound around campus? Yep, it's student government election time again. There is both good news and bad news in this statement. The good news is that after years of empty promises, few students actually believe that grading curves will be eliminated if Candidate X is elected, or that Candidate Y will bring a Dave and Buster's to campus. The bad news is that despite low voter turnout and apathy regarding student governance on campus, no one has thought of anything better on which to campaign. It's not as if would-be student leaders don't have enough good counsel. Former Mayor Ed Rendell wisely advised UA members Monday night to "focus on things they can change." And assuredly, more than a handful of incumbents and challengers were in Irvine Auditorium when former Clinton aide George Stephanopolous told students Tuesday to look at politics as a mix of "pragmatism and idealism." Unfortunately, the Nominations and Elections Committee can't legislate intelligence or common sense, and campus politicos will thus continue to promise rodent-free high rises and a Taco Bell on every corner. But we can take concrete steps that may, someday, create elections that actually mean something: Give us something to vote for. Two years ago, concerned students put a referendum on the ballot letting students decide whether the UA should fund fraternity events. Countless words on this page were devoted to the issue, and students from College Green to 1920 Commons actually debated matters of substantive student government policy. And voter turnout in that spring's elections reached its highest levels in years -- a respectable 33 percent. Allowing students to vote on ballot questions will give them a reason to participate in the electoral process. Right now, the candidates themselves are so homogenous that it almost doesn't matter if one gets elected over another. But voters do by and large have opinions on issues that matter -- student group funding, campus retail, sweatshops, alcohol and club sport space among them. Only some referenda, like the one two years ago, are meant to translate directly into policy. But at other schools, like Duke, student leaders use ballot questions to gauge campus opinion on the issues. And that gives them vital information -- which can translate into greater leverage with the administration. Give us someone to vote for. The head of Penn's student government -- the chairman of the UA -- is chosen by a closed vote of UA members a week after the general election. More often than not, how well a student polled is a secondary consideration, pushed aside by backroom dealings between and among newly installed UA members. However, at many of our peer institutions -- including, not coincidentally, many with much higher voter turnouts -- the top student government official is directly elected. This system carries with it a number of advantages. Candidates have to campaign more forcefully and effectively, reaching out to a broader segment of the student body than they do now. Those who want to lead will have to draw firm distinctions between themselves and their opponents -- and conflict is the surest way to generate buzz around campus and excitement at the polls. And at the very least, this system will give us someone for whom to vote. Right now, the ballot offers few candidates we've even heard of and fewer we've ever met -- and still fewer about whom we can speak intelligently. Under this presidential system, we'll be sure to know something about the candidate we endow with the responsibility of leadership. With a mandate from the student body at large, he or she will have increased leverage in office, but also be increasingly accountable to the voters. And the informed, involved electorate created in the process is the best means to ensure that student government leaders are held to their word. Give us a reason to vote. Right now, there don't seem to be any compelling reasons to participate in Penn's own quasi-democratic process. Without issues to cast a vote on or candidates worth backing, there really is no other reason than benign idealism to log on to Penn InTouch and choose from among five dozen cookie-cutter UA candidates. But it doesn't have to be this way. Give students the chance to make their voices heard on issues that really matter to them -- as well as the opportunity to choose their own leading representative -- and they will respond with greater interest in student government and campus affairs. For sure, it's worked elsewhere. As we snooze through another campaign season here, we might as well give it a try.