Recently, the A.S. Council overwhelmingly voted in opposition to a measure that would have allowed a “vote of no confidence” to appear on their ballot, forcing candidates to defeat the “no confidence” option to take office. With equally heated arguments for and against this option — stating that the prospect of dumping all candidates for a particular office would either drastically add to or reduce the amount of petty politics involved in A.S. elections — we must step back and look at the elections process as a whole to make any sense out of the madness.
With our highly contested national election out of the way, it is time for the collective eye of UCSD to turn toward the campus’ own political squabbling. For freshman readers who haven’t seen campus politics in action, picture two weeks in March when every mental patient this campus has to offer comes out of the woodwork to viciously fight every other mental patient while attempting to verbally assault every passing student with an array of homemade propaganda.
This may seem like a somewhat unfair portrait of our campus leaders’ race for power, but it’s not far off. In this breeding ground for future career politicians, these students take the race very, very seriously. A space on the pavement or a poster in Price Center becomes grounds for an all-out gang war between any number of warring factions, in the hopes that the slightest advantage will place the student in the gilded seat on the A.S. Council.
Unfortunately, despite the legitimate amount of concern students should feel about the A.S. Council and the million dollars it throws around each year (funding the annual Sun God Festival, among other endeavors), Joe and Jane Student don’t care about student council elections, as evidenced by the voter turnout, which seems to perpetually hover around a scant 15 percent.
Perhaps it is this dreaded student apathy which caused this year’s A.S. Council to overwhelmingly vote down the measure that would allow a “vote of no confidence” to appear alongside the names of the candidates on March’s upcoming A.S. ballot. After all, the “abstain” option overwhelmingly wins every office except that of A.S. President every year, in addition to garnering the most votes when something important like a fee referendum is on the ballot, so why give these apathetic students the option to throw out the election results entirely?
There’s actually a very good reason, and that is because most of the people whose offices are in danger of losing to “no confidence” are those colloquially known as “slate fillers.” Since election bylaws allow higher spending limits to a student political party that has a full ticket, candidates for larger offices often fill spots with unqualified candidates to add these candidates’ campaign expenses to their own campaign, even if these students never lift a finger during their own candidacy and do not care about their elected office.
This year, more than half of the A.S. Council quit and was replaced during the first couple of months of their term. Yet somehow, despite the fact that most of the college senators have jumped ship, the A.S. Council is still doing a competent job with no major errors so far this year. This is possible because when a student politician quits, the council as a whole appoints somebody who is actually qualified to do the job. This process of appointment was used to fill a majority of council seats both this year and last year; both of these councils were very strong and managed to get work done. Since this same process would be used in the case of a “no confidence” vote, the A.S. Council does not need to worry about losing its most able members if “no confidence” wins an office or two.
Since the election process would essentially be the same (appointment by the winning president), the only difference one would see in A.S. Council elections would be increased student input. In the words of Warren College Student Council President Erik Ward during the debate over the “no confidence” vote: “What is [council] afraid of?” Student politicians never seem to talk to students outside the A.S. circuit, so why not offer a chance for the common voter to actually voice an opinion?
The recent political quagmire in November between President George W. Bush and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) found a large segment of the population fed up and disillusioned with both candidates; a “no confidence” option on the ballot would have much more accurately represented voter intent than the quasi-jihad “red vs. blue” mentality purveyed on CNN. If UCSD student politics truly are the training ground for career politicians, why not force them to campaign honestly to beat the “no confidence” option instead of forcing them to campaign negatively to beat each other? An introduction of the “no confidence” option would easily clean up ASUCSD elections within a year or two by removing the petty politics.
Yet, the double-edged sword of student apathy has its own problems. Even though “no confidence” may give an apathetic student body a chance to offer constructive criticism of the “slate-filler” system, it also provides an equal chance to offer all student politicians the finger and throw the entire system into anarchy. If “no confidence” were an option, there is a decent chance in the first couple of years that an overwhelming majority (think 90 percent) of all student politicians would lose. As enticing as it may be, this “gallows” option on the ballot would scare away many good politicians as well as “slate fillers.”
After all, the A.S. Council has enough trouble as it is trying to fill its seats without the specter of complete and utter failure or humiliation hanging over every position.
Even though they might not act like it during election season, politicians are people too, and often have very sensitive feelings surrounding student council elections. Sobbing and screaming are familiar sights during the reading of election results; it does not take an extreme stretch of the imagination to see that more severe reactions would be added to the mix if complete and abject failure were a likely result for politicians.
So, even though the “no confidence” option would ultimately create a better democratic system for our student council check-writers, the initiation of the process would probably hinder the elections completely for a couple of years, threatening Sun God or producing some other comparable calamity. It would be a better idea to slowly phase in “no confidence,” begin with some less severe penalty, or leave it out entirely and look to other methods to keep student politicians in line.
Besides, did you really expect a group of politicians to voluntarily vote in a measure that would hurt their chances of being elected? Given this council’s history of rewriting the elections bylaws after every election to favor the winner, it seems highly unlikely. But the very consideration of such an idea gives hope for the future that the members of council are doing their best to look out for the interests of all students. Just as long as they are elected first.
