Low turnout may invalidate referendum

Despite an extra day of voting, many student leaders said turnout for the Undergraduate Assembly's spring elections and a referendum on the future of the Social Planning and Events Committee was low and probably not enough to make the resolution binding. Although final votes are still being tallied and will not be announced until Monday, Nominations and Elections Committee Chairperson Marcus Causey said yesterday that the third day of voting was probably not enough to draw enough students to the polls. The referendum, if passed, would make SPEC a student government agency separate from UA. While UA elections are valid regardless of the number of students who vote, at least 20 percent of the student body must cast ballots for the results of the SPEC referendum to be binding. "It's going about like it normally would, for the first two days," said Causey of the turnout. But he added that he doesn't expect last year's "phenomenally high" turnout to be repeated this year. Last year's two-day election drew between 17 and 18 percent of undergraduates to vote. "Before we started [the election], I thought that almost for sure we'd get 20 percent," Causey said. "Now, I'm not so sure." Current UA member and candidate Ethan Youderian agreed yesterday. "I don't think 20 percent of the people are going to vote," the Wharton freshman said. "One of the main reasons is the rain and bad weather." Even if the SPEC referendum fails, UA candidates were still anxious about the elections and made their final pitches for votes as officials collected the final ballots. Wharton candidate Andrew Tsai said he had been campaigning for several hours every day leading up to the elections, primarily in the Wharton School where he could speak to his constituents. Youderian said he had also been campaigning, but that he did the majority of his before the elections by going door-to-door. He said he was concerned about the apathy of students about the elections. "Student government is important because its trying to improve student life on campus," he said. The low turnout "shows that students don't really care about what's going on." College candidate David Rose was more optimistic about the turnout, however. "I think it's going to be a lot better than a lot of people are saying," he said, adding that if students do not vote, it is for lack of time, rather than lack of interest. Causey disagreed, saying he thought many students consciously decided not to vote. "It's not that people don't have time to vote, it's that they don't want to vote," he said. Students at the polls yesterday had various reasons for voting. Wharton sophomore D'Maris Coffman said the UA "puts a check on the more extreme groups, like the [Progressive Students' Alliance]." Regan Allan, a College sophomore, agreed that the UA is an important group. "They have the support of the administration and the support of the majority of the student body," she said. "I think the UA has improved immensely in the past year." College sophomore Andy Baker had a much less idealistic reason for going to the polls. "I'm voting because it's the best way to meet girls," he said yesterday.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.