A better election

Last week, a little over a third of Penn students cast ballots in the student government elections. What happened to the other two thirds? Are they not concerned with their representation in the group that is responsible for $1.4 million of their money? What can be done to reverse the trend of declining voter turnout?

Today we will lay out a few suggestions for improving the election process. Tomorrow we will look at ways in which the various government branches can make themselves more relevant as to drive more interest in the election.

It is disheartening for both constituents and candidates alike to see such apathy. At a high-profile school such as Penn that graduates scores of leaders -- from the political to the business realm -- the fact that a vast majority of students are disinterested in their student government is a shame.

The Nominations and Elections Committee has a system in place that does an adequate job of collecting votes and mediating disputes. But some facets of the election process could be revamped in order to attract more interest and participation.

For one, the week-long period of voting has a number of downsides. By stretching out the amount of time the polls are open, a sense of immediacy is lost. For nearly all Americans, it is hard to miss Election Day. It is only one day -- everyone knows when voting begins and ends. On campus, nearly half of all votes are recorded on the day the polls open. After that, turnout falls off dramatically and students forget about the election entirely. The extra five days of voting could be done away with. A one-day election is worth looking into, and should be tried as an experiment with the freshman class elections this fall.

When it comes to actually voting, students are more fortunate than the average citizens in that they can vote online at their leisure. But what is lost in this is the buzz created by seeing polling places around campus. Setting up a handful of stations with computers and PennInTouch would draw further attention to election day, much the same way as paper ballots and voting booths did years ago.

And while few votes are being cast now, it makes little difference in the numerous elections that were not even contested this year. Many races, especially the class boards, had only one candidate running, which would further contribute to the general disinterest. The class boards would be well served by the elimination of superfluous positions such as Vice President for Corporate Sponsorship and the representatives from the various schools. By shrinking the number of seats -- to possibly just President and Vice President -- a more competitive race with real campaigning would follow.

When it comes to the races for Undergraduate Assembly representatives, it is curious how these candidates can be truly representative, especially considering that voters are asked to choose 16 seats for the College alone. This is tantamount to voters in Philadelphia selecting all of Pennsylvania's 19 congressmen on one ballot. Fortunately Thomas Jefferson and company had the intuition to create representative districts in Congress, and the UA would be wise to do the same.

Representatives should be divided evenly among classes -- five for each class in the College, one each for Wharton and Engineering and one for Nursing -- and one at-large representative for each school. This way, voters would be choosing a small delegation that would be more responsive since they have a smaller group of constituents. Localizing the election in this way would generate more interest as races would be more tightly contested.

It is imperative that the student body shed the mindset that these elections do not matter -- they do. Making races more competitive, focusing on issues and adding more hype around one election day would at least help stem the rising tide of voter apathy.

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