Overhaul Needed for UCSD Elections

Dear Editor,

I had the opportunity in past weeks to work on the presidential campaign for independent candidate Mike “”Hershey”” Hirshman. Through this experience I became convinced that our election rules need improvement to bring a fair chance to all. Hirshman was the best candidate, as endorsed by your own paper, and from what I saw, the hardest working. Hirshman worked his heart out, meeting people and attending meetings (from sororities to the physics club). Yet he was unable to overcome the strength of slate politics.

First, the campaign period be extended. Of the 1,160 votes that Hirshman received, I estimate that at least 800 of these votes were earned by Hirshman himself, in two weeks of campaigning, by meeting people around campus and going to club meetings. Hirshman worked 16 hours a day for two weeks, going around and introducing himself – he could not have worked any harder. At this pace, he could have earned an additional 400 votes if one more week of campaigning was permitted. For slates, which have many people to campaign for them, the amount of time was less important. This could even be seen by both slates packing up well before the elections ended, while Hirshman didn’t pack up until 10 minutes after voting ended.

Secondly, the inordinately complex campaign rules should be simplified. We were always afraid to try something new, whether it was bringing a laptop into dining halls or reserving a space on Library Walk. Fortunately, there were no grievances filed this year, but there is such a culture of grievances, and a multitude of small infractions to make, it scared candidates from reaching out to the student population. In federal, local and state government campaigns, candidates are allowed to knock on doors of voters, so why can’t candidates knock on doors in the dorms? Candidates should be encouraged to reach out to voters, instead of being afraid they will get in trouble for doing so.

Finally, instant runoff voting should be implemented. The winning presidential candidate received 34.4 percent of the vote with just over 22 percent of the students voting, which means less than 8 percent of students voted for the winning candidate. Instant runoff voting would be easy to do, since all voting is online, and it would allow students to rank candidates, essentially stating their second and third choices ­and ensuring a majority vote for the winner.

Right now, the election process seems to be an unwelcoming game. With a slate of several dozen people, each candidate on a slate needs to get perhaps 40 votes to ensure victory for the slate. An independent candidate must earn every vote individually. The process of meeting constituents and allowing them to talk to candidates about issues they care about is a healthy one – and one I feel should be encouraged by the school.

– Evan Bloom

John Muir College senior