Now that the ASUO elections have at long last been finalized, it is time to reflect upon the many ordeals and grievances put upon the student body and ferret out the important lessons that we can take away from the often frustrating situation. Above all else, this year has proven, once again, that having the largest campaign war chest doesn’t necessarily equate with victory. And that’s a great sign for student government.
Jay Breslow and Holly Magner were announced victors in the ASUO Executive race Thursday, winning by a sizable margin, despite being outspent by front runners C.J. Gabbe and Peter Larson. Gabbe and Larson shelled out about $1,500 compared with Breslow and Magner’s $530.
This is not the first year the heaviest spenders have failed to attain the executive office. Last year, Wylie Chen and Mitra Anoushiravani were outspent by about $550 dollars on their way to a victory in the primary election for ASUO Executive.
Those results are ample evidence that money doesn’t equate with victory in ASUO elections, meaning that candidates’ messages are weighed seriously by student voters. Whatever the reasons, it is the best assumption to say that students are actually listening to the ideas of the candidates and vote their consciences that way. And when students prove they are informed and listen to ideas rather than being swayed by who can create the most noise, whatever mandate they issue at the voting booth must be respected.
While it may be a valid argument in national campaigns to say that the candidates who raise the most money from individuals prove they have the will of the people behind them, such an argument appears faulty within the University’s political arena. Rarely do students give money to their favorite executive hopefuls, which makes it difficult to deduce which candidate is the popular choice prior to the election. This makes our informed electorate very important as they can ignore popularity factors in favor of the candidates’ intelligent visions of the future.
The process of actually studying the positions, talents and passions of executive candidates helps the democratic exchange of ideas on campus by making sure that the viewpoints of the average student are represented by their elected officials. Instead of having to assume that as happens too often in American politics the richest candidates win, it is heartening to know that there is a great deal of viability for any serious student candidate should they be motivated to run for office.
For those who remain skeptical about the entire political process, there is encouragement to be found on our campus.
If this trend of the weightiest campaign coffers failing in elections to less funded, better political minds, there is ample reason to believe that University students will continue to be represented well by their student government.