Hopkins Elections: How open and fair is the process?

With SGA elections right around the corner, one cannot help but return to thoughts of last year's train wreck election of the executive board, which featured the disqualification of every contender in the entire race for executive president, as well as a smattering of other complaints of rules violations across the board. While many of these instances of cheating were blatant, executed by the offenders as an attempt to either circumvent or otherwise completely disregard the constitutional restraints, the CSE (Committee on Student Elections), by creating such stringent and ridiculous rules, should also shoulder their share of the criticism.

Granted, last year the candidates were aware of the intricacies of the rules and knew the limits of their campaign. But when the rules are fashioned in such a manner that they so drastically restrict a candidate's ability to get out the vote on election day, even if one cannot forgive corruption, the CSE can at least understand why it occurs. In a system so broken, one cannot but conclude that a drastic overhaul and perhaps a complete reversal of previous practice is necessary in order to make these elections free, fair and open.

The current standards, as established by the CSE in 2006 and which are available online, rightly prohibit "dormstorming" and forbid making disparaging comments about opponents or gaining favor by campaigning with alcohol that could possibly be used to sway the minds of weak and vulnerable voters (I am aware of the new rule changes and will address them momentarily, but for now, the only rules available to the student body through any reasonable medium are the rules established April 2006). Many of the restrictions set forth in the CSE election policy guidelines aim to protect the dignity and credibility of the offices of the SGA, while protecting the students outside the process from unwarranted or unwanted invasions into their private lives and residences. However, not all of the restrictions make as much sense.

Recently, a case has come before the SGA Judiciary in which the use of Facebook as a method for campaigning was put to question, validated by a section of the SGA constitution that protects the free speech of students. It should be noted here that I was unable to obtain a copy of the SGA constitution in its current form (the SGA Web site is non-functional and the constitution is otherwise unavailable online) and any references to it are subject to communication errors between myself and the SGA Judiciary. Additionally, the Judiciary's decision was equally unattainable.

However difficult it was to locate, a decision was made in favor of allowing campaigning on Facebook, though it would remain subject to the same rules that apply to other forms of mass communication, for example, the prohibition against using Hopkins listproc servers to send out mass e-mails. Hopefully, the fact that this issue was pushed through at the 11th hour does not mean that other candidates currently outside the process will not be unaware of the restrictions that still apply; we must assume that the current board is acting in a manner that upholds the spirit of competition and fairness as the guiding principle of their action.

This decision, while a step in the right direction, still falls short of the long-needed changes. The established protocol that prohibits campaigning on election day and forbids the use of mass spamming is as insulting to the student body as it is unnecessarily restrictive to the candidates themselves. The idea that because a candidate tells a student to go vote for them, or that a student will be more likely to vote for a person because they sent out a listproc e-mail assumes that the student body is a stupid as it is apathetic. We as a majority may not care about who wins or we may be disenchanted with the personality contest that produces a government of the unmotivated or underwhelming, but we are not stupid. And the provisions set up by the CSE insinuating such are insulting. In that same vein, these restrictions on the candidates themselves only create artificial and potentially unenforceable rules that overcomplicate the elections to the point where all the students in a given race are disqualified because they or someone they know sent out an e-mail or message asking and reminding people to vote for them. Imagine such limits in an election of real importance, and the ridiculousness becomes blinding. Come on CSE, if we're going to pretend that the SGA is a legitimate governing body, shouldn't we begin by making sure that the students see the elections as legitimate determinants? Otherwise I propose that we add another addendum to the SGA constitution, which Professor Mark Blyth asserted only half-jokingly in a lecture: "Any student who runs for student government should be forbidden from holding any elected office upon graduation. Forever."