Last week’s Student Government elections were a success. With more than 8,500 students voting, a record, many would claim that the comparatively large number of students voting is more than enough proof that the elections were a triumph. However, taking a deeper look at the issue, one will find that despite the record turn out, SG elections could face a rough road ahead.
SG elections are still, by and large, the domain of those who are already powerful and influential on campus. While we have nothing against those who have done their best to get involved, be it in student organizations or those who have spent their time in SG from the beginning of their college careers, we wonder how fair or open a system can be that allows one large ticket to dominate every election. This reliance on the power of two tickets is also worrisome for those who fear voter fraud.
While the elections that took place last week appear to have been free of such bad conduct, we realize that the online voting system has a great potential for abuse — which is what led former SG President Allen Richey to veto it last year. Recently, the University of Alabama dropped their online voting scheme when they found out that various organizations on campus were collecting login IDs and simply voting for their members.
With the Election Code currently before the Student Senate for revisions, we hope the body will seriously consider a few changes. For one, the period of campaigning must be lengthened to allow students who lack the membership in large organizations to build support. To disqualify those who attempt to drum up support in open meetings, yet allow recruitment for tickets at closed settings is a violation of the democratic process itself.
The Election Code must rein in the process of campaigning. Allowing tickets to set up laptop stations where students can vote in the presence of several campaign workers belongs to an era of party-operated polling booths, and has no place in modern elections.
Lastly, some thought should be given to limiting the amount of money that a ticket in general can spend, which can reach, theoretically, reach as high as $20,000, and this year saw the “Infocus” ticket spend around $9,000 while the mostly victorious “Making it Happen” spent close to $12,000. This would level the playing field, while saving those involved a good deal of money at the same time.
The SG leadership of 2005 must seriously evaluate the process of elections on this campus.
Indeed, it is imperative that they act now before the process fails and a crisis destroys the integrity of student elections.
The Daily Reveille Editorial Board is: Scott L. Sternberg, Editor-in-Chief; Mark F. Bonner, Managing Editor; Ryan Merryman, Opinion Editor; Dorothy E. Paul, Online Editor; Jason Dore’, Columnist.
 
The Editorial Board produces weekly editorials written by the Opinion Editor which express the views of the Editorial Board. However, the opinions of the board do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of The Daily Reveille’s staff.
 
This editorial was written by the editorial board of The Daily Reveille. The views expressed are those of the board and do not reflect the views of the entire staff.