Lauren Burdette | Electing for a good dynamic

In 1800, two giants among men, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, held deeply-entrenched, opposing ideas about what direction the nascent nation should take. Their ideologies played out in the election when they ran against each other for president of the United States. Jefferson beat incumbent Adams, but was stuck with him as vice president. Their differences were so great and the campaigning so intense that they became bitter rivals and didn’t reconcile until the end of their lives (in one of history’s quirky moments, they died on the same day: July 4, 1826).

Think this is ancient history solved by the 12th Amendment? Think again. With many student organizations gearing up for their annual internal elections, it’s not a bad idea to consider which scenarios might play out. While student-government groups have the Nominations and Elections Committee, which, according to Chairwoman and College senior Rachel Levick, “serves a facilitating role for internal … elections,” student groups from the Penn Democrats (of which I was president for 2008), to the Civic House Associates Coalition, to Strictly Funk, rely on these internal, group-run elections to pick new leadership.

Clashes of ego and hurt feelings are common. Tellingly, many student groups that had contested elections in the past year didn’t want to be quoted on the topic. So let’s run a thought experiment. Group X has several passionate members vying for the top role. All have similar character traits, and all want to shape the organization as they see fit — though that extra resume line doesn’t hurt motivation either. What happens? After four years on campus, I’ve noticed a few general scenarios that tend to play out.

Scenario A: The candidates who lose the election leave the organization. The candidate’s supporters remain, somewhat unhappily, in the organization, but eventually it’s just institutional memory.

But Scenario B is far more likely to occur. All the candidates running are dedicated and qualified to run the group, so the one who comes in second place ends up winning another leadership position. This poses a series of potential dilemmas.

Let’s call this Scenario B, sub 1. The spurned candidate might make life hell for the guy who won, corral the members of the group who supported him in the election into a faction and blindly oppose every proposal the leader makes. In the words of my negotiations professor: that would be a bad outcome. Penn’s cultural, performance, Greek, political and community groups are the heart of campus life. If these groups are consumed by internal political squabbles, the entire community suffers in the form of fewer or poorly planned events, and in extreme cases the dissolution of the organization.

And now for Scenario B, sub 2: The ideal compromise. The two former rivals pull a Clinton-Obama and put their differences aside for the greater cause of the group. Wharton senior Raymond Flores, chairman of the Asian Pacific Students Coalition, won an election among five candidates, one of whom was then elected vice chairman.

“Our relationship is extremely effective, and in fact we’ve actually become better friends through this process,” Flores said.

But Scenario C is, in my admittedly unscientific observations, the most likely outcome. It’s a grey area with a rocky adjustment period. Everyone tests the waters as the group dynamics develop, and ultimately reach some sort of compromise to keep the group running smoothly.

So as we head into the first round of internal elections, I urge student leaders to look past just the interviewing and vote-counting. The most important task a recently elected leader can take to ease this transition process is to clearly communicate with the other candidates how your relationship will go forward. Should everyone wish to stay with the group, all need to work together to move the group forward. This inclusive action puts the group in a dynamic, energetic position to move forward and have a successful year.

Having the patience to persevere

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