In our endorsements for the Student Government Association executive board, this page pointed out that we were significantly impressed with all of the candidates running for president. We entered this election with hope and optimism for the SGA's future. Sadly, it took less than a week for them to disappoint us.
The debacle that was the SGA elections and the ensuing controversy have eroded the trust we so idealistically placed in the Student Council. The fact that the candidates running for office failed to follow the simple rules of the elections is discouraging.
Our positive impression of them was undermined by their unprofessional manner during the election process. Candidates should know about the rules of the elections they are participating in beforehand and then follow them thoroughly. If they fail to follow the rules when running for office, the student body can not expect them to govern effectively and properly when in office.
Candidates may disagree with the rules, but they must abide by them if they wish to be representatives of the student body. By failing to do so, they have done the student body a great disservice.
Pending appeals, junior class president Sonny Chandrasekhar was disqualified for sending out an e-mail during the election period. Vice President for Student Life Justine Mink was disqualified for not reporting her campaign finances, along with four other candidates who did the same thing. This means that freshman class president Dan Teran and sophomore senator Evan Lazerowitz are the only candidates left to ascend to the presidency and vice-presidency. Teran and Lazerowitz are competent and visionary candidates, but victory by default is the worst way to win.
More candidates were disqualified than were left in the race. These disqualifications, though perhaps necessary, dealt an injurious blow to our student democracy. Students will now be represented by a president who did not win the popular vote.
The SGA's leaders should be elected through a vigorous and competitive election process. Part of the responsibility for providing such an election goes to the candidates, but the larger part goes to the Committee on Student Elections. The electoral process was run poorly and the rules were ambiguous at best. The candidates cannot be completely faulted for their failure to comply with the electoral laws. These rules are a bureaucratic minefield and democracies can not properly function if their elections are as chaotic as this year.
Some of the rules also strike us as potentially unfair. David Rokeach, for example, was disqualified from the race for vice president because Chandrasekhar mentioned his name in an e-mail during the elections. CSE interpreted this as campaigning, which is forbidden during voting and disqualified Rokeach. That strikes us as absurd.
Other procedures are confusing and inconsistent. The CSE decided that seniors could not vote in the election. This law makes sense. These elections are intended to choose representatives for next year's student body, of whom seniors will not be a part. And yet, due to technical irregularities, seniors were allowed to vote, and their votes were counted. In fact, their votes made a difference: Rokeach won the vice presidency based only on the strength of the senior vote, and once senior votes were removed, Lazerowitz became the winner.
The CSE needs to consider serious electoral reform in order to amend and streamline the rules on campaigning. These rules need to be clear and articulated openly to the candidates and the student body.
After the appeals process is completed, this election debacle will leave a difficult challenge for the elected leaders who will take the reigns of the SGA. They will have to restore trust among students that their government will be able to represent them effectively. The students deserve more than what they got. Elections must proceed professionally, and governance must work effectively.
The best way now for elected leaders, whoever they may be, to restore confidence in the SGA is to articulate clear and ambitious policy goals and to work tirelessly to achieve them. Even that may not be enough to undo the sweeping damage done to the student government's reputation. These elections served only to reinforce the perception - one that student representatives have fought so hard to change - that the student council is a bumbling, ineffective bureaucracy.
The new leaders of the SGA will have to work hard to prove that this is the final fumble by a clunky and ineffective Student Council. They will not have regained our trust until they do.
