Archived: Apr 14, 2008

> Editorial

Reform SA Election Laws

Changes could benefit both students and Student Association

By Chris Walker

No matter what the outcome of this week’s Student Association (SA) elections (PLEASE VOTE), one thing can probably be agreed upon: To make the election a bit more fair or just plain easier to handle, reform is needed within the SA Election bylaws.

There are many who believe that those who are running the election this year are conspiring with a certain political party to ensure a victory, and there are also many who believe that those running the election are doing a terrific job. Whatever your outlook is, it’s hard to hold a legitimate election when the Independent Elections Commissioner (IEC) is a member of the incumbent party, and was appointed by said party.

This is not to say that an incumbent party is wholly incapable of choosing an independent mind to run the election, but rather that the selection method within the SA of choosing an IEC is hardly without controversy. Indeed, for two years straight the IEC has been a controversial position to hold, mainly due to their ties to the party that appointed them.

Building more checks and balances into the system to regulate commissioner selection can solve this problem. Requiring all registered political parties to approve the IEC would legitimize the election to a greater degree.

Those running as independents would count as their own party, and a majority vote among them could be seen as approval of the IEC. With all parties and independent candidates agreeing upon an elections commissioner, we throw out any possibility that one party is being viewed in a more positive light than others.

Next there’s the problem of early campaigning. SA bylaws state that no political party or person seeking office may campaign before a certain date. Why this law is in place is quite puzzling, and the law has quite an impact on First Amendment rights (by banning speech).

Restricting campaigning at any stage is wrong; this law should be removed. If anything, early campaigning would be a good thing: it would allow us to become more informed about the issues and the candidates running for office.

Do you honestly think that the average University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee student will know each individual candidate running for office this year? Early campaigning may allow those running for senate the opportunity to meet more students and to make their case for why they’d be a good legislator.

Finally, there absolutely, positively needs to be more student participation within the SA. Voter turnout rarely reflects total population size in any election, but at UWM it’s beyond unrepresentative.

More students need to be involved, not just friends of the candidates but real students who have a stake in the election. Of course, each of us has a stake in the election, so really everyone should take the time to vote. The harsh reality is that very few people actually take the time to spend a few minutes of their day getting informed and voting in SA elections. What can be done about this? An independent organization – perhaps run by the IEC him/herself – could compile a pamphlet that had information on each candidate or party to be handed out the week of the election.

Furthermore, incentives can be given to students who vote. We could give free brats or hotdogs to students who have participated, or raffle off free Brewers tickets to those who take the time to vote. The possibilities are endless, but something must be done to make students want to vote more.

These are just suggestions that came to the mind of one person, but certainly more ideas could help to make SA elections easier and more legitimate, as well as increase overall voter turnout. There should be more discussion on these ideas, and certainly the ones presented within this article are not full proof.

However, reform is sorely needed within the election process at UWM. Hopefully, whatever party wins, we will see changes for the better.

> Comments

Free food for voting????` on Apr 14, 2008 at 07:41 AM:

maybe we should reccomend that to our federal government to increase voter turn out as well!!!

yay! Another government program!!

Now wait a second, who would be paying for these brats and hot dogs? The SA, right? Which would mean more spending when they are keeping things fiscally conservative.

Don't think so. Not because they wouldn't want to encourage students to vote, but that is an unneccessary expense.

confused on Apr 14, 2008 at 12:25 PM:

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not but I think it's funny that the current student government’s idea of fiscal responsibility has happened at the expense of student programming and services. Maybe food wasn’t the best idea, but it’s better than sitting around and just accepting the ridiculous lack of student voter turnout.

Also, you're comparing our student elections with the federal election process? What a joke. Look at the process and the rules that govern it and you'll see that they are so different it's laughable. In what other system can you be assessed points to get kicked off the ballot? Answer: None. In what other system are there restrictions on the time you can spend talking to your voter base? Answer: None. In what other voting system is there a potential for complete and utter bias in all aspects of the election process? Answer: None.

No matter who you’re voting for you have to accept that the system we currently operate under is flawed and needs significant reform.

@ free food on Apr 15, 2008 at 09:37 PM:

better hot dogs for all students than 12 k for a private SA trip, it is the students money after all! How can you sleep at night SUFC?

Chris Walker on Apr 16, 2008 at 07:02 AM:

SA doesn't necessarily have to pay for the hot dogs and brats (that was just a suggestion, by the way...it can be other things); they can have private businesses on or around campus donate money to sponsor the event (the free food, not the election).

But even if SA were to pay for the event, it would be much cheaper than other things the SA has done in the past; that trip to NYC is a great example of money not-so-well spent.

Hot dogs for students who voted would be an excellent way to spend money in my mind.

Corrupt Election on Apr 16, 2008 at 03:19 PM:

I can't believe the breaking news today. Leave it to SUFC to have their opponents removed from the ballot with less than 24 hours until the election. Didn't the trumped up charges against ASAP occur on Monday? Why did Dan "SUFC Puppet" Bahr wait until now to notify everyone of the removal? SUFC didn't want to leave enough time for their opponents to regroup and get the word out. HEY SUFC, doesn't this call for a victory celebration to NYC on the students? Students need to go vote and send a clear message to SUFC -- WE DON'T WANT YOU!!

$ly$py on Apr 16, 2008 at 03:32 PM:

Well, you maybe surprised to find out that myself (and a few nameless others) are running for senator positions in SUFC...but we support ASAP ideals and plan to uphold them!

From the $ly$py

saf on Apr 16, 2008 at 06:43 PM:

SLY SPY IS NOT A SPY BUT AN SUFC SENATOR, you are a liar

Informed Observer on Apr 17, 2008 at 11:50 PM:

Putting forth such an IEC Bylaw revision anytime before the last meeting prior to the beginning of an election cycle is likely to be futile because it can be undone with another revision at a subsequent meeting; unless you have a two-thirds majority seat composition in the Senate, you would have to time it just right and hope that some of the opposition are out of town the night of the meeting. Also, making potential voters ticked off is the best way to mobilize them; achieving a similar turnout in happier times is like a rainbow in the dark.

ACLU = JOKE on Apr 18, 2008 at 08:58 AM:

ACLU = JOKE

Might want to check this out while you're at it on Apr 18, 2008 at 09:31 PM:

While you're on the topic of reforming things, the Post could try doing some digging into SAC as well. SAC caps athletics organizations, and only athletic organizations, at 3 trips per semester. There is no such limit for other kinds of orgs. I'm no Regents v. Southworth expert, but applying a strict limit based on the purpose of an org (athletics in this case) can't be viewpoint neutral. Looks pretty illegal to me.

SAC on Apr 19, 2008 at 12:34 AM:

that last statement is completely untrue SAC has no such cap, if you don't believe me take it up with SAO or SAC themselves! so you might want to get the facts while you're at it!

caps on Apr 19, 2008 at 11:18 AM:

Caps are listed right on SAC's own site:

http://www.uwm.edu/StudentOrg/sa/legislative/sac.htm

Click on the "2007-2008 SAC Funding Caps" link. It explicitly states in the document that "**Athletic Organizations can receive funding for no more than 3 trips each semester."

Listed in an official document, on the SAC website, with the chair's contact information in the document. All due respect, last poster, who needs to get their facts straight?

By the way, I'm not even affiliated with an athletics organization and I don't particularly care about the cap myself. I'm just a Post reader dumbfounded by SA's antics over the past couple of years. I hope at some point a more significant part of the student population will also start showing some concern with what has been happening and finally force SA to clean itself up.