USG needs student support

A member of the Undergraduate Student Government contacted me last week after online voting for residential senators ended. The reason was to inform me that I was tied with several other people by virtue of write-in votes to represent the non-traditional student seat.

I informed the USG representative that I was unable to serve because I wished to continue writing for the newspaper in addition to the fact that I do not even live in a non-traditional area. However just for kicks, I asked how many votes I received to tie for first. She said "one." I laughed and the conversation was over.

Although my undesired tie for a USG seat was a non-issue after confirming I did not live in any of the non-traditional areas, it raises several interesting questions about student elections and turnout.

Turnout in the fall USG elections is always lower than the spring USG elections, which receive a substantially larger amount of attention because of voting for president and vice-president. This semester, over 1,260 students voted in the elections, but the number is a decline from last semester's near 25 percent turnout rate.

Certainly, such a trend is an indication of cost-benefit analysis of voting, but is also directly influenced by USG and by the candidates running for office. USG has an obligation to publicize elections and to recruit candidates for office. The organization, as a whole, fulfilled its obligations by tabling at events, promoting the organization to freshmen and by posting fliers around campus.

Certainly, some areas had highly competitive elections as evidenced by higher voter turnout. Some of the areas with lower turnout saw uncontested races and even a number of races with no nominated candidates, resulting in a write-in free for all. Part of the reason for low turnout is a failure to find enough candidates willing to actively run for what seems to be a thankless job.

Perhaps it is easy to quickly blame USG for failing to recruit enough candidates, but perhaps USG did all it could to recruit students to run. Maybe the real reason for a lack of candidates was the result of students having less interest to serve in USG for one reason or another.

In addition, as races have become less competitive students have begun to abandon serious campaigns for election. In the spring elections, thousands of doors get canvassed and issues are discussed, which results in the higher voter turnout. In the fall, candidates undertake less serious campaigns resulting in the mobilization of only the people they know, floor-mates and other individuals who meet the candidates.

In the end, both of the reasons I previously mentioned are in all likelihood only small factors as to why voter turnout is so low. Perhaps even better rationale for low voting turnout can be found in general election trends through the country.

United States presidential elections always receive a higher voter turnout than off year elections, which in turn receive a higher turnout rate compared to local elections. Many municipalities holding local ballots see a turnout of less than 20 percent and in some cases near 10 percent. Low turnout is the result of apathy and indifference in these types of circumstances in addition to less and less hype by the local media in terms of election coverage.

When people decide to vote, they internally conduct some type of a cost-benefit analysis as to whether or not to go to the polls. Voting incurs a large amount of time cost and perhaps monetary costs. The smaller the election, the less and less the perceived benefits are.

Furthermore, a large number of people do not vote in local elections because they fail to see any pressing issues at hand and are thus indifferent to any of the candidates running. To the person deciding if there is any benefit to voting, the votes on the local level do not matter because the issues facing the municipality are perceived as being much smaller.

However, it is on the local level that issues most directly influence the daily lives of the average voter. Unfortunately, a voter being indifferent on issues is evidence that candidates and political institutions as a whole are failing to raise the issues in a distinct manner.

Such is the problem of low voter turnout at UConn. USG decides how the fee money directly collected from students is to be distributed to organizations and discusses matters that directly influence daily academic, social and quality of life concerns of students.

Yet, as I look at all the candidates who were running for office, I find it extremely hard (with certain exceptions) to discern a candidate who engaged in a great philosophical debate of any of these issues. I dare even to say that nearly all of the students failed to even discuss or debate the issue of organization funding, which directly influences the economic interests of students. Unfortunately, those issues that are most often discussed are the issues least likely to ever be solved.

Campaigns for senate seats this fall were more like high school student council elections - giant popularity contests. At the university, a center of information and great philosophical discussions, students should have the ability to transform elections from popularity competitions to serious policy discussions of the issues at hand.

Ultimately, any organization is only as good as its weakest member. In the future, if USG desires to boost voter turnout and find candidates that are more serious the organization should encourage candidates to bring the issues at hand directly to the student body. Such encouragement only comes from within the organization's current members.

If USG is viewed as a giant social clique, which postures and pontificates on the issues but accomplishes little - then students have little incentive to vote. However, if USG can discuss the issues at hand in a serious and professional manner that produces results - perhaps - when elections come around, candidates will bring the great policy debate to the student body. Such is the conundrum and dilemma facing all political institutions and candidates nationally.

Sources:

http://www.uconn-usg.org/fall04results.htm

http://www.dailycampus.com/news/2004/09/24/News/Usg-Election.Results.Announced-730583.shtml?page=1