“The ASUO is a joke.” I have heard this phrase uttered countless times in the past few weeks, and while running my own campaign for ASUO Vice President I couldn’t help but ask myself if it was true. The process has shown me how little most students care about the ASUO, as well as their lack of comprehension of what it does. I see a serious lack of variance between the platforms of the candidates (aside from Pete the Pirate, of course), and it seems to me that winning the election is based almost solely on networking and forcing people to vote, not by disseminating any sort of message to voters. So, is it true? Is the ASUO, a group controlling approximately $12 million, a joke?
I argue that the ASUO itself is not a joke, but the campaign process is. From what I’ve seen, the majority of students are more familiar with the election than the actual governance of the ASUO, and this is where their apathetic feelings toward the group emanate from. Students recognize the slogans, the annoyingly vibrant shirts, the synchronized dancing on East 13th Avenue and University Street, but they have no idea what the ASUO does. Obviously, this is the fault of those who are elected. Their outreach lasts for two weeks, and once they have our votes they give up their effort to talk to us.
I see two specific ways in which the campaign process can be improved. First, I would do away with the formation of slates among candidates. Removing slates would force individual candidates to make a case for themselves on why they should be elected. My thoughts here stray to this year’s election for Senate Seat 19, the journalism seat, which was won by Reality Check candidate Grace Hochstatter — a freshman, who has yet to gain entry as a full journalism major. During the primaries, she broke election rules by placing her posters on walls around the journalism school in Allen Hall, instead of only on bulletin boards as the rules dictate. What’s more, she spelled “bridge” wrong on these posters. That’s right, our journalism senator spelled “bridge” wrong on her elections posters and won by a landslide because she was a part of the most effective slate. Now, in my opinion, that’s a joke. Without the umbrella of Reality Check, the race would have been decided much more legitimately.
Secondly, online campaigning should be opened up weeks before the primary elections begin. This would offer candidates a chance to get an actual message out to voters, instead of just a T-shirt or a color. It would create an opportunity for candidates to actually debate issues and for voters to be an integral part of the discussion. It would permit students to learn about the candidates and issues on their own time, instead of being hassled on campus. Further, it would allow people to see that the ASUO is important, and to argue with publications such as the Oregon Commentator that claim it isn’t (and in the next line try to write a legitimate ASUO endorsement, another joke). Overall, opening up online campaigning would make the elections much more personable. That was how ASUO presidential candidate Cassi Gritzmacher and I tried to run our campaign, and given more time I think it could have been seriously effective.
I challenge next year’s executive to actually look to change the culture of the ASUO — instead of just forgetting about the students who voted for them the minute they step in to office.
[email protected]