The Annual (S)election

With two undergraduate council executive-board elections completed and two more to go, students are witnessing the peak of the campaign season. Still, too few take an interest in the handing off of responsibilities to a new cohort of elected leaders. To curb such student apathy, the councils should revise the campaign schedule and engage the student body early and often to underscore why student government matters. They must further act to effectively end the favoritism some outgoing council leaders seem to extend to their preferred candidate.

This year’s elections have been less than exemplary. General Studies Student Council elections have been complicated by the controversy surrounding former GSSC President Niko Cunningham. In the shadow of Cunningham’s impeachment, elections for next year’s council have been delayed due to an appeal by a write-in presidential candidate seeking to participate in a presidential debate. At Barnard, Sarah Besnoff, BC ’09, ran unopposed for president of the Student Government Association, and the rest of the Executive Board went similarly uncontested. That so many important races drew only a single candidate each speaks both to a lack of competition within student government and to students’ disinterest in council elections.

Regrettably, such difficulties are no aberration. The undergraduate councils suffer from perennial flaws that compromise student-council elections. Election debates take place in prohibitively small rooms, and candidates only scratch the surface on policies and issues that ought to be of great concern to voters. Campaigning and voting is often hurried, lasting a mere three days for SGA elections. The election boards should reform the campaign schedules to allow greater room for debate and afford students more time to familiarize themselves with the candidates and their platforms. An informed electorate is better equipped to participate in open elections, the best antidote against ineffective council leadership. Internal elections for the Engineering Student Council, though conducted in keeping with ESC policy, are widely considered to encourage cronyism. Also worrisome is the favoritism with which incumbents in the Columbia College Student Council treat their preferred candidates. Three of the last four outgoing CCSC presidents, including this year’s, have informally—via e-mail, interviews, or a visit to the Spectator office—supported candidates or tickets in violation of council rules. Coupled with the inadequate campaign season, this endemic rule-breaking calls into question the legitimacy of both elections and representative bodies.

Most broadly, but crucially, the councils and election committees do not engage students in order to clarify why student council is important. The councils control club funding, interact closely with administrators, and serve as a voice for their respective student bodies. Those who take on these leadership roles are genuinely knowledgeable about how the University functions and what outlets and resources exist for students. But many students view the positions as time-consuming responsibilities taken on by ambitious bureaucrats seeking to build a résumé. To restore confidence in the electoral process, election and judicial committees, as well as outgoing councils, must ensure that all elections are fair and competitive. They should make clear the specific functions of each elective position and disseminate objective information about the candidates before students head to the polls. The councils should also educate first-years about the power and importance of council positions, especially since first-year council often serves as a testing ground for future executive-board candidates. First-year elections take place early in the year, when students are too new to the University to make informed decisions. Moving the elections back by even a few weeks would give new students time to get their bearings before deciding who best represents their interests.

It is time for Columbia’s undergraduate student councils and committees to address the practices that lead students to mistrust elections and elected representatives. In doing so, they may well succeed in generating more interest and trust in their own leadership.