Give us a real vote

With the recent issueless Undergraduate Assembly elections and the controversy over Nominations and Elections Committee appointments, two realities have become p-atently obvious: We badly need to reform student government, and we will need to do it ourselves. Here's how.

First, let me lend my voice in support of a number of DP editorial proposals made over the last few weeks. The UA should explore using line-item appropriations and riders to exercise the power of the purse. It should change the rules so UA approval is needed for each individual nominated by the NEC. There should be more roll-call votes so that voters can make decisions based on past performance. And most importantly, we badly need the "redistricting" scheme the DP proposed to create real constituencies.

I would suggest two further changes. First, the NEC members should be elected. Second, the UA chair and vice chair should be elected as a ticket by all voters, not just by UA members.

The Nominations and Elections Committee is a branch of student government that wields an immense amount of power and, recent controversy not withstanding, generally does so unnoticed in closed-door meetings. Perhaps a better name would be "Appointments and Elections Committee," as current rules all but guarantee those nominated a rubber stamp.

Yet for all the power this organization has, the NEC is unelected. As a branch of student government, it claims to exercise power in the name of the student body, but that student body has no say in its composition and no electoral recourse to protest its decisions. Whether or not the NEC does a good job, it is fundamentally unrepresentative, and this should change.

But while changes are needed for the NEC, a more substantial makeover is needed for the UA. Every year, students complain that the UA is a do-nothing body, and every year the UA chair writes an op-ed extolling the organization's many accomplishments. The reality may be somewhere in between, but regardless of whether the UA deals with issues, one look at the campaign posters show that its elections do not.

Issueless elections mean that even though representatives deal with important policies, voters do not get to consider their stances before voting, and as a result, representatives are accountable for little more than maintaining their humorous slogan year after year.

Electing the UA chair and vice chair in campuswide elections, with the candidates running as a ticket and any student, not just sitting UA members, able to run would help solve this problem. Such a high-stakes election would be a focal point for campus attention and ensure that issues dominate, if not in the selection of UA members, then at least in that of their leadership. Such a race would allow for a real debate between candidates and help voters decide based on issues.

Some would oppose this plan, arguing is that outsiders could not run the UA because they're not familiar with the rules and procedures. But cannot the voters make up their own minds about what are the most important characteristics for their leaders? Certainly candidates could campaign successfully on the basis of student government experience. But perhaps a fresh, outside perspective is exactly what the UA needs.

Others may argue that campuswide elections would just ensure victory for a Greek ticket, as fraternities and sororities are best positioned to mobilize voters. To be sure, Greeks are an important campus constituency and their support could mean a lot. However, fraternity issues do not dominate the UA, individual brothers and sisters do not all think alike and Greeks do not compose a majority of the campus population. So while there are important campus constituencies, such a plan does not mean certain victory for any of them.

Still others may argue that such an election would only be a campuswide popularity contest and that UA members are at least knowledgeable of the candidates' positions, strengths and weaknesses. But I have faith that when given a choice, the student electorate would prefer to choose a chair running on a real platform against one running on a funny photo. Moreover, having candidates run on a ticket would make them campaign on what they have in common and in turn force them to develop a real platform.

But we the student body do not need to wait for the UA to reform itself. These changes could be made by an amendment to the UA Constitution. Such amendments are implemented by referendum, and referenda can be called "by the presentation of a petition with signatures from 200 undergraduates."

Whatever we do, maintaining the status quo is bound to ensure that UA campaigns continue to be little more than the issueless, personality-driven popularity contests they have long been.

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