Three percent. Of the 41,169 students on campus, that is only 1,235. Just 1,235 students felt compelled to make it to the polls to vote in the spring Associated Students of Madison election last year.
Members of ASM blamed the low turnout squarely on the format of the election, a hastily assembled paper ballot system implemented after the Student Election Commission found several systemic flaws in the online voting system provided by the Division of Information Technology. Thus, we arrive one year later, facing a shiny new online voting system that promises higher turnout and all-around better democracy—supposedly.
This campus does not face a problem of voter turnout, but one of informing those voters. Online voting may yield more voters, but it does not necessarily mean that more students make informed decisions about who is representing them in their shared governance of the university.
It comes straight out of a political science textbook. A voter faces barriers to entry in the election process—like finding information about candidates, knowing where and when to vote, and getting to the polls. Campaigns aim to lower these barriers to encourage people to get to the polls and ideally vote for their cause.
Online voting is just a technological shortcut to this process. It reduces the barrier of time investment to nearly nothing, which is convenient on a campus this size. However, getting people to the polls is only half of the equation. Without being informed on who candidates are and what they advocate, online elections become popularity contests at best.
The very recent failings of these online election systems calls into question whether they actually make the election process any easier in the first place. As we saw last spring, there is the possibility of failure within the system, which nullifies the results. Reversing decisions in faulty elections costs campaigners more money and time to re-campaign, and every election held over again loses voters who are unclear as to why they are voting for something that they thought they voted for already.
Just the shadow of doubt on the accuracy of these systems is enough to make many election commissions around the country gun-shy on using them for any local, state or federal election. The possibility of faulty results encourages ineffective campaigners and those who just plain do not represent a majority opinion to waste their time challenging election results rather than designing a more effective campaign with the public that they are trying to persuade. The reliability of the system cannot be questionable.
The candidates in ASM elections cannot rely strictly on the shortcuts of online elections to bring voters into the election process. Relying on the process alone to mobilize students is both irresponsible and risky. Students need to care enough about the issues and the candidate stances on them to overcome the barriers to entry into the election process without technological aid. If candidates had been campaigning effectively, the format of the election would have no effect at all on its turnout. Last spring's dismal turnout illustrates that candidates are lacking in this respect and failing to truly mobilize the student body.
