Opinion: Another year of low voting numbers shows the larger flaws in the ASUO system.
———-
As we have passed the week of ASUO elections, I haven’t heard a single soul talk about it outside of people directly involved in the campaigns or running for a seat. It’s a campus non-event; a small group of people squabble a little bit and then it’s over. While both of the election slates have tabled, the ASUO did not do any non-partisan tabling to promote the election.
While a link to vote was sent out to all students in an email, it could very easily get buried in their inboxes, especially if students don’t even know who’s running and what they stand for. Without any knowledge, it’s just a list of names — many of which are unopposed —and budget propositions with lengthy, hard to understand blurbs.
The ASUO plays a very important role on campus. It is in control of the Student Incidental Fee, which is part of all tuition payments. This is the funding used for nearly all student groups and events around campus. The EMU board, also under the ASUO umbrella, “allocates the EMU’s multi-million dollar budget, assigns space for student groups and advises staff in the management of the EMU.”
No student groups funded by ASUO are allowed to discuss the elections besides essentially saying, “Go vote.” In Section 4.5.2 of the ASUO Election Rules, it states “I-Fee funded student organizations may not promote any candidate or campaign via social media or any other method.” This means that student groups can’t host candidates, even just to hear them speak. If they do, they or the candidates they endorsed might be sanctioned. Per Section 8 of the Election Rules this could entail “the removal of posted campaign materials, temporary suspension of some or all campaign activities, permanent suspension of all campaigning activities and removal from the ballot.”
Max Jensen, one of the ASUO presidential candidates, encountered many issues with this current system.
“Since we’re not allowed to do any other kind of outreach besides tabling, groups can’t give statements about what’s happening with the elections,” Jensen said. “It’s creating a situation where people feel unsure of how to vote so they don’t vote at all.”
Only 1,563 people voted in this year’s ASUO election, per the ASUO Election Board. That is a startlingly low number for a school of around 22,298. Last year 2,788 people voted, meaning that the engagement has gone down even further than previous years.
The Daily Emerald and the Election Board are the only fee-funded groups allowed to cover the elections and student groups that represent marginalized groups on campus currently have no voice.
Besides the email, there was no easy access to the voting link either. Jensen was unsure if he could put it on his flyers, so he excluded it, only to later be told it was okay.
“It is structurally just a popularity contest. It’s just a matter of how many people you know,” Jensen said. “Underrepresented communities are being actively disenfranchised in this process.”
With only the campaigns themselves and two on-campus groups allowed to talk about the elections at all, information is incredibly scarce. I had to talk directly to the people I knew were running, and even then, I didn’t have all the answers I wanted. Student groups have a right to have an opinion on who will be controlling the funding they depend on, or to at least hear about each campaign in their own space.
The campus community at large needs to be truly included in the election process. Students deserve more non-partisan sources of information and to have their questions and concerns heard. Everyone’s tuition is going toward the I-Fee controlled by ASUO. It’s high time to make real efforts to include everyone in the conversation and not continue the pseudo-democracy that ASUO currently is.
