OUR VIEW: Further election improvements needed
After observing this year’s ASUSU election in its entirety, we found that though we try to spread information about elections and candidates the best we can, the majority of students voting are still doing so blindly. We can only assume this is because it appears that any form of bribery is an effective way to stack up student votes. This year we were bribed with things like massive sugar cookies frosted with festive blue A’s and free raffle tickets.
Clearly, those on campus who tried to reach students and urge them to vote had an incredible amount of success. This year, the voter turnout nearly doubled that of last year’s election. This pleases us.
However, passing out cookies as bribery to vote in general is much different than bribing students with raffle tickets to vote for a specific position on an issue. After the College of Science senator filed a grievance against the USU College Republicans president for doing just this — tallying votes against the Aggie Recreational Center and Legacy Fields fee — we figured the grievance board would demand to redo voting for that particular item on the ballot. We are assuming that had students voted down the ARC fee, there would have been demand for a recount. Luckily for ARC supporters, the fee passed by a narrow 134 votes.
While it is positive so many students votes, it would be ideal to see students who were more educated on the pros and cons of the ARC fee as well as the pros and cons of each candidate. With the way elections are set up now, this ideal is doomed. Students only have one way to view candidate platforms before elections begin — on the ASUSU website — and let’s be honest, how many students enjoy surfing USU’s website? Therefore, the majority of students vote for the candidate who has the whitest smile or the largest mob wearing their campaign shirt. We’ve observed the I’m-friends-with-everyone candidate knows nothing about USU Administration, policies or procedures. But in the end, they always win.
We’d like to see campus elections work the same way national elections work. We would all be more informed if we could familiarize ourselves with the candidates’ names and platforms weeks in advance. It doesn’t work to throw a bunch of names at freshman students three days before final elections and expect them to have an understanding of who these people are. Secondly, why do we have public voting? Shouldn’t we make our own decisions during elections, instead of having our best friend feed us who he or she thinks the dime-piece candidates are.
More than anything, we are sad to see the nontraditional presidential candidate receive the least votes. He had a realistic view on what his position could accomplish. He had unique ideas while some of the other candidates spat out the typical line, “I want to help you be heard.” If we knew who the most worthy presidential candidates were, we are certain the numbers would have reflected something much different.