Frosh elections successful

Frosh elections successful

By Judy Tompkins · The Johns Hopkins News-Letter · October 31, 2002

In the aftermath of all of the controversy surrounding the freshmen Student Council elections, the Hopkins student body deserves an explanation of what, exactly, occurred. Although the events of the election -- most notably, the disqualification of the winner of the presidential election, but also issues like election publicity and voter turnout -- have been oft-discussed, the rationale behind a lot of the Board of Elections (BoE) rules and methods are fair and logical.

The disqualification of Saul Garlick as candidate for president was certainly the most talked-about aspect of this year's freshmen elections. It does seem unreasonable to disqualify a candidate solely for a late spending report. However, there are reasons for the spending report rule. One main -- and heavily emphasized -- BoE rule is that candidates for office must turn in a spending report to a BoE member or to the BoE mailbox by the close of the polls in order to be eligible to win.

This rule is strictly enforced because it ensures the fairness of elections: each candidate can spend no more than $100, and in order to enforce this, the BoE needs to see what each candidate has spent, and on what. If candidates were allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money, the candidate with the most disposable income would probably win, as it has been evident in the past that the candidate with the most publicity often wins the election. In order to guarantee that all students -- not just ones with more money to spend -- have a chance to successfully run, the BoE wants to at least attempt to make sure that candidates adhere to spending rules. Candidates have all 10 hours in which to place a sheet of paper in a mailbox or hand it to a BoE member; this is not a lot to ask.

Furthermore, Garlick's disqualification was the result of a late report in conjunction with campaign violations. It is clearly stated in the BoE campaign rules that if a campaign rule is unclear, a candidate should ask to have it clarified, as any broken rule could result in a campaign violation and subsequent expulsion from the election. Numerous candidates complained about Garlick's quad-chalking the day before elections; though the BoE asked Garlick to remove the chalk, it was still there the morning of the elections.

Did Garlick win the election because he had the mandate of his class, or because he used a (forbidden) method of campaigning unavailable to the rest of his competitors? This is a question that cannot be answered, and only furthers the point that as the candidate with the most publicity wins, all efforts must be made to level the playing field so that the quality, not the quantity, of campaigning is what counts. Christal Ng received the highest number of second-place votes, and thus was fairly elected president of the freshmen class.

There were also other criticisms of the elections that should be explained. It has been said that voter turnout was less than usual this year. This is only partially true. Voter turnout last year was 47 percent of the freshmen class -- that figure includes everyone who voted. Voter turnout this year was 38 percent, but that is after duplicate and fraudulent votes were thrown out. The decrease in turnout, then, is not as bad as it may have looked. Furthermore, this was the first time that the Board of Elections tried online voting. No systems crashed and the program tabulated votes correctly and accurately -- things could have gone much worse!

Things could have, however, gone better -- there is always room for improvement. There were many types of publicity before the elections: signs around the freshmen dorms, a banner in the breezeway, e-mails sent out to the freshmen class and word-of-mouth publicity by both the BoE and StuCo. But as elections were online now, the importance of publicity has certainly increased. Students who have suggestions for improvement should let the BoE know.

It seems, then, that the rumors about the election were much more prevalent than the facts. This year's freshmen elections were not run perfectly -- but they were, by no means, run shoddily or unfairly, and we have no doubt that the six new Student Council members earned their positions and represent the interests of the freshmen class -- and Hopkins in general.

The author is the co-Chair of the Board of Elections (BoE).The BoE may be contacted at BoE@jhu.edu.