INFORMED CHOICES, EMPOWERED VOICES
HOW WE CAN IMPROVE ASUO ELECTIONS
As the University of Oregon braces itself for another round of ASUO elections, it's imperative to scrutinize structural flaws that mar our democratic process, contributing to student apathy, voter fatigue, and abysmally low turnout.
ASUO elections, while integral to student governance, are often perceived as convoluted and detached from the student body. This democratic spectacle begins with candidate filings that give the air of democratic competition and choice, but these are only superficial influences. The prevalence of unopposed candidates casts a long shadow on the authenticity of our representation and the value of positions at all. In a system where competition is scarce, it's not just an election; it's a coronation that renders students indifferent to the entire electoral charade.
The problem extended to the voting process as well. Campaigns and competition, crucial components to a healthy election, often devolve into popularity contests. This not only eclipses substantive issues but calls into question the legitimacy of the electoral outcome. A system that prizes popularity over merit risks leaving the needs and concerns of our student body unaddressed.
The lackluster campaigns and unchallenged candidates perpetuate a cycle of voter fatigue. This was partially addressed through the winter term special election which saw passionate and active displays from ASUO members and Organizations fighting for the students' votes (despite the failure of ASUO election committee to inform students on the election). When students witness a drought of robust discussions and alternative perspectives, the incentive to engage diminishes. The result is a democratic façade that, rather than reflecting true representation, amplifies the dissonance between student government and the student body.
Moreover, the voting period, conducted electronically, seems modern but fails to inspire widespread participation. Students, bombarded with information and overwhelmed by academic responsibilities, often find themselves succumbing to voter fatigue. The lack of awareness and excitement around the election further exacerbates this issue, resulting in only a fraction of the student body casting their votes.
As the University of Oregon strives for a more vibrant and engaged student body, it's time to draw inspiration from institutions like Washington State University (WSU), which boasts the 6th most active student government. By dissecting the initiatives that fuel this active participation, we can chart a course for an ideal student government set up and election process that beckons students to the polls.
KEY COMPONENTS OF AN IDEAL STUDENT ELECTION SETUP
IN-PERSON VOTING HUBS
Implementing on-campus voting hubs, like those at WSU, can bridge the gap between students and the electoral process. These hubs should not merely be about casting votes but should serve as educational spaces where students can attend informational sessions, ask questions, and make informed decisions. They are knowledge centers where students can learn about the candidates, ballot measures, and the impact of their vote. This tangible, face-to-face interaction helps demystify the electoral process, making it more accessible and engaging for students.
INTERACTIVE DEBATES AND TOWN HALLS
Elevating elections by making the discourse between possible options (candidates) more interactive, issue-focused, and visible. Town hall sessions, where candidates engage directly with students, create a platform for genuine discussions on matters that concern the student body.
REDISTRIBUTE THE STIPEND OF UNOPPOSED REPRESENTATION
Another potential strategy to fix ASUO elections involves reevaluating the significance of unopposed candidates, particularly those who garner less than 10% of the student vote. Instead of allowing them to assume office uncontested, it’s proposed: candidates failing to secure a minimal threshold of support should not be sworn in, and the stipend earmarked for their position redirected towards funding student organizations.
This redirection of resources aligns with broader empowerment of student-led initiatives, clubs, and organizations. Rather than funding a position with lackluster student support, those financial resources could be reinvested into the fabric of student life—the organizations that contribute to the vibrancy of campus culture.
Furthermore, the vacant position left by an unsworn candidate could be opened up for student representation. A rotating seat representing public interests. This approach ensures that the power and responsibility of the position are distributed among individuals with demonstrated commitment to campus activities, fostering a more representative and inclusive governance structure.
The question looms large: Are we settling for a system that merely pays lip service to democratic ideals, or are we ready to demand real change? Our university deserves a student government that transcends the superficialities, one that genuinely mirrors the vibrancy and diversity of our student body. It's time to dismantle the faulty structures, advocate for substantial reforms, and ensure that our elections are not just rituals but genuine expressions of democratic values. The goal is not just to increase voter turnout but to foster an environment where every student feels empowered, informed, and eager to contribute to the shaping of their university's future.
