The Lost Election :: Wessex Scene Online

The Lost Election

16th March 2007
Jack Haines

Rate this story

More by Jack Haines

Two weeks before the election I randomly polled 200 students, about 1% of our Union, on whether they would vote in the upcoming elections. With no information about it yet present on the walls and website, few actually knew it was about to occur, and yet a staggering 60% told me they were definitely voting. If this had worked out then this year’s election would have had a turnout of 12000 students.

As it was, the final turnout was closer to 4000, which while low was not surprising. Student elections often suffer from low turnouts, however, with huge opportunity on offer at the elections is it right or even justifiable that the turnout should be as low as it is?

One often used excuse in the past was that with so many different candidates and sites it was hard to effectively get a message across; however, with the internet this has largely been eliminated and candidates can campaign from their living rooms. It must be noted though that the electoral rules forbid the use of Facebook and other personal sites in order to preserve fairness. While this is noble in protecting students’ privacy, it detracts from the drama of a real election and could be a factor in a dropping turnout. The Union regulations are simply too nice and don’t allow for the rough and tumble of professional politics and with that, half the fun. Dirty tactics, for example, are unjustifiable but occur in real elections; overspending occurs, publicity stunts occur. While I am not suggesting a total abandonment of the rules, a significant relaxation may persuade students that their vote is worthwhile if they do not want "that blaggard" to get in.

More than even the system of electoral rules, the voting system itself does not aid in defeating the low turnout, being a transferable vote system rather than first past the post. The mathematical permutations of transferable voting systems encourage the voters to think and vote negatively, i.e. vote for the least likely candidate after their favourite in order to lessen the chances of a more threatening candidate winning. This also means that online voting is deeply flawed, as a great many voters will vote selectively in categories they care about, but in others they will simply tick the boxes in numerical order. While first past the post systems are rarely perfect, they do have the effect of making people think deeply about their vote, as they only have one. This would also eliminate the situation where a candidate may be the first choice for, say, less than 20% of the electorate, and still win over a candidate who has anything up to a 50% backing of the vote depending on the transferable votes.

The current system’s other major flaw is that it skews the statistics by creating huge majorities in the final round that do not exist in the first; this gives the impression of a bigger turnout and eliminates the hammer-like shock of a very low turnout. In an election where only ten votes are cast, 50% seems a great deal bigger than five.

The solution is not easy and I do sympathise with those responsible for running the elections. Aside from their other duties they have to promote an election, which is never easy, and those I saw in the Stag’s Head on election night seemed frankly shattered. Nor is the blame entirely on the students who do not vote; if there is no reason to vote, if we are able to gain as high a standard of Sabbatical officers as we have for many years without a high turnout, why should the students feel obligated to vote? It is a question of unity. We as a Union must not allow the idea that our elections are worthless and to be ignored to perpetuate. The idea that we as students can elect a body to defend our interests is still revolutionary and must be defended. After all, with many thousands of students using Union facilities every day, why should the decision as to who will maintain these facilities be neglected? The knee-jerk reaction would be to ban all non-voting students from Union facilities, after all there is always the R.O.N. category if the candidates do not appeal. But this is surely too harsh. A better sight would be the Union making a more focused effort to educate incoming students and first years about the elections from the earliest point possible, such as in the Fresher Handbook. What is certain is that reform of the system must come soon indeed if the elections are to have any bearing at all. To simply watch as we surrender our democracy to apathy would be ruinous. Action must be taken now.