University of Virginia Library

Mismanaged Hopelessness

Last month's election for members of the
Student Council and the Judiciary Committee
demonstrated beyond any doubt the incredible
need for reconstruction and reorganization
of the whole election process at the
University. Such would have been the case
even if the election had gone smoothly. As
things turned out, however, it can only be
described as a perfect example of brilliant
mismanagement of a hopelessly unworkable
institution.

The failure of the election to produce even
reasonably representative results was most
dramatic in the College: only 54 per cent of
the students cast ballots; of them only 42 per
cent voted for the front-runner of the four
men who were elected to the Student Council
- in other words, that front-runner's constituency
consists of less than 23 per cent of
those whom he represents; the front-runner in
the Judiciary race received votes from only 15
per cent of those over whom he will have so
much power; the constitutional amendment
on the ballot fell sadly short of gaining even
consideration; and the referendum on co
-education was helpful, but something less
than reliable.

A variety of factors contributed to the
failure of this election. To begin with, it was
ill-managed: the controversial and complicated
voting machines were left unattended
much of the time; at least two of them broke
down, most noticeably the one which would
only vote one way on co-education; further,
the response to the announcement that classes
would be optional on the second day of
voting was just the wrong one - the polls
should have been closed then and re-opened
one day this month in order to assure everyone
of equity and of as large a turnout as
possible. As it happened, though, the heads of
the political societies decided to "allow" the
election if 1200 students (or about 33 per
cent) voted. Can you imagine a "representative"
elected by a plurality of 33 per cent of
the electorate? Fortunately, 54 per cent were
able to cast ballots, but that was a significant
decrease from the last election and was far
short of the 67 per cent which consideration
of the amendment would have required.

Unhappily, the results which the election
did produce are less than reliable.

Oddly enough, registration was required in
order to vote at the ballot boxes but not at
the voting machines. And the machines were
unattended much of the time. The unpleasant
prospect of too much ease for anyone to vote
more than once when faced with the temptation
of having only to punch buttons to do
so, especially when no one was around, is
impossible to drive out.

Those were the results of mismanagement.
Perfect management, however, would have
availed little. Even if 100 per cent of an
electorate votes, when there are 13 candidates
for four positions no one is likely to receive
any sort of representative support. And the
possibility of any sort of mandate is remote,
at best. So four men will enter an office in
which they will have no power other than
their vote itself, no voice other than their
own. Such a situation is hardly fair to the
candidates, not to mention the unrepresented
electorate.

Such a situation, if allowed to continue,
can only produce a sadly unrepresentative
body to speak for the students. A representative
body derives its power form those
represented, and as they decline in number, so
declines that power. Mr. Shannon or any
other administrator can hardly be expected to
give much consideration to a proposal forwarded
through such a body when he knows
that the individual constituencies of its members
are negligible portions of the student body.
Those constituencies can only be expected to
become smaller and smaller as more and more
students avail themselves of the opportunity
to run for office unselected or unscreened.

Thus it is imperative that some sort of
primary or other system be developed by
which the electorate itself can screen candidates
for whom it would like to vote. In
December, for example, a simple ballot prior
to the official one would have served to
eliminate those of the 13 candidates who,
although they had no chance to win, received
votes. Thus the number of candidates on the
real ballot could have been reduced to six or
seven, which would have enabled a more
representative vote.

It is essential that some such sort of
system be established before the next election
if the Student Council is to get anywhere in
its drive to assert itself and to claim for
students their proper rights and power. The
Council cannot be effective unless it is the
"voice" of the students to a reasonable
degree; the current framework for elections
discourages the hope of its representativeness'
being increased, and so discourages the hope
of its power and effectiveness' being increased.
We hope the Councilmen will consider this
matter carefully, for if they do not improve
the election process and the management
thereof for future elections, they are wasting
their time in their role as the "proper channel"
through which representative student
proposals must go.