Editor's Note: Vote Smart!
Forward Article to a Friend
Print Article
Throughout this issue, readers will find a single overarching theme: ASSU elections are in need of reform. The Undergraduate Senate made an important first step in this reform process by precluding group endorsements from appearing on the ballot. However, the current system still allows for uncontrolled amounts of spending. Concerned students (which should include every student) need to address the current situation by voting for candidates that will continue to disallow endorsements on the ballot (see page 8) and voting against Special Fees that do not serve the interest of the student body as a whole (see page 4 and 5).
The Undergraduate Senate’s removal of endorsements from the ballot was vital to making ASSU elections fair. A candidate’s affiliation with a particular student group does not make him or her a better candidate. In fact, it demonstrates that that particular candidate is subject to a bias towards the affiliated group. Why else would a group endorse a candidate? The Students of Color Coalition (SOCC) endorses candidates that they believe will serve in their best interests—by approving more funding, bringing relevant issues to the forefront, etc. Suddenly, a Senate candidate becomes a representative of SOCC, not the student body.
This might not sound so horrible, but ballot endorsements are harmful because of the characteristics of endorsement groups like SOCC. If the Stanford Democrats or Republicans endorse a particular candidate, it gives voters an idea of what principles they generally believe in. When SOCC endorses a candidate, however, it just shows that the candidate is not white (a minority) and “promote[s] the respect of Stanford’s racial, cultural, and ethnic groups.” SOCC’s mission is to foster and create a non-white student government that is self-perpetuating. Their mission works, too. SOCC has good organization. Over a dozen of the 37 Senate candidates this year are endorsed by SOCC. E-mails and other communications encourage members of minority groups to vote for the SOCC candidates. Generally, the SOCC-endorsed executive slate is the favorite. The Kannokada/Okonkwo triumph over the SOCC slate last year was a major upset. When just over half of the student body participates in ASSU elections, a little organization can go a long way. This reality, however, does not benefit the average Stanford student. Candidates need to be judged on their principles, character, and experience. Racial and group affiliation should play no role in the decision.
Unbelievably, students approved every Special Fee group in last year’s election. No group was deemed unworthy. Ironically, the Stanford Axe Committee came the closest to getting “the axe,” with just over 50% approval. SOCC groups did surprisingly well—all were over 60%. All of these groups received approval for funding despite the fact that few do a genuinely good job at reaching the entire student body. Stanford Mock Trial, for example, is generally self-serving. The only outreach event the group sponsors is a high school symposium. Stanford students are allowed to attend, but I doubt their numbers are great. This year’s Undergraduate Senate even recognized Mock Trial’s lack of outreach—denying the group most of its request. In response, Mock Trial successfully petitioned around the Senate, and is now balloted for $3,900 of travel expenses to Los Angeles, $3,940 to Arizona, $2,400 to Portland, and $1,400 to Florida. Exactly how these trips benefit students that are not members of the 30-person team is a mystery.
Petitioning around the Senate to increase Special Fee funding is perhaps one of the most disgusting parts of the current system. Stanford Mock Trial increased their funding by almost 1400% by simply obtaining around 1000 signatures. People are generally too nice to say “no” to petitioners, especially when the petitioners say it is just to “put our group on the ballot.” Mock Trial is one of many examples. The Stanford Daily, which already earns nearly a million dollars in revenue each year, petitioned around the Senate to cover printing costs. This petitioning must stop, or our Special Fees will get out of control. If an already fiscally-liberal Senate denies a group a certain amount of funding, students can entrust that there is a very good reason for the group to not receive that funding.
Voters can address the problems outlined by smart voting. Vote for candidates with principles inline with yours (see page 8 for a start) and only approve Special Fees that cater to your interests—unless, of course, you plan on getting a refund.
Fiat Lux!
Ryan Tracey
Editor-in-Chief
