Fixing the Frenzy

The youth vote is up, but the chaos and confusion of the campaign turns many youth voters off at the most opportune time to draw them into the democratic system. Unfortunately, this national problem is replicated here at Harvard—just replace “youth” with “freshman.” But unlike at the national level where there is no quick fix, the current system for electing first-year Undergraduate Council representatives can—and must—be drastically improved.

The problem is that two weeks into freshman year, candidates are given less than a week to introduce themselves to a quarter of the class and convince their peers that they are the right person for the job. Not surprisingly, they adopt an impersonal “hi, vote for me, bye” mentality as they go around introducing themselves, putting up posters and handing out candy. Candidates also make far-fetched promises about what they’ll do if they win. For example, I was told that with my vote, Annenberg would stay open later, as if the whim of a first-year representative could get dining services to renegotiate its employee contracts.

In short, the one week campaign became a hand-shaking, slogan-making and candy-bribing contest that left many of my classmates thinking, “This is stupid. Why should I vote?” The result is a university-wide election turnout of just over 40 percent. Though this is higher than it’s ever been before, the current system is leaving many first-years walking away from student government before they even give it a chance.

So what can the council do to fix this problem and boost student involvement right from the beginning?

First, the council needs to better inform incoming students about what it does and why it is important to participate. Aside from a small booth at the activities fair and a notice buried deep in the Yard Bulletin, student government did almost nothing to reach out to students during Freshman Week. The council should be more proactive about reaching out to first year students when they arrive. The involvement of student leaders during that first week would lead to discussions about student government and segue naturally into the elections, which would be more substantive. Also, informing students about the role of representatives would eliminate the exaggerated campaign promises that plague the current system.

Second, the council should move first-year elections back a few weeks. While the council does have important business to address right from the beginning, it should put a priority on drawing in first-years. Just a few weeks into the year, first-years are still meeting each other and getting to know each other. With the elections held just a few weeks later, the campaign would be much more personal as freshman would have more time to get to know the candidates. Upperclassmen representatives could get by without first-years for this brief period and fewer first-years would be turned off by the impersonal nature of the current election system.

Third, the council needs to extend the campaigning period from one week to several weeks. This could be part of moving the elections back. The current one-week-system contributes to a good portion of the chaos. Given the brief window to garner votes, it is only logical that candidates adopt blitzkrieg tactics. With a longer campaigning period, the same tactics may be employed but without the brevity. Instead of a quick handshake, a substantive discussion of concerns and ideas may occur. And the sense of impersonality driven by the “Hi, vote for me, bye” mentality will diminish.

Admittedly, three proposals will not solve every problem. But with a little more knowledge and a little more time, the Class of 2009 will care more about student government than the Class of 2008.

Adam M. Guren ‘08, a Crimson editorial comper, lives in Wigglesworth Hall.