The Student Government Association presidential election became a runoff election due to a discrepancy between election rules and the SGA constitution.
Candidates Randy Gipson-Black and Jordan Tarter received enough votes to remain in the runoff election. Because no candidate got the majority of votes, a second election was necessary to get a true majority between the two candidates.
Official numbers for the initial election were not released at presstime.
See HERE more on the SGA election.
Discrepancies with numbers and bylaws are common election issues, but they could be averted easily if the governing documents of SGA were more clear. Officials have different interpretations of the constitution and the election rules, causing problems when students disagree as to whether there should have been a runoff election.
The constitution defines “majority” as more than half when referencing meetings but not when addressing elections. The election rules state that the rule only applies to elections of four or more people. For elections with three or fewer candidates, the person with the most votes wins the election, according to the election rules.
This can cause confusion between students and officials, whereas simplifying the rules would make it less open to interpretation.
A rule that reads: “The candidate with the highest amount of votes wins, except if there are four or more candidates, then the candidate with 50 percent plus one would win the presidency” would prevent this kind of confusion.
This would require amending the governing document, which can be laborious, but this is a small price for a solid electoral process.
The more loosely the rules are defined, the more students can adjust meanings to skew election results, interfering in the democratic process. This is not a risk worth taking.
Students coming forward saying the rules are unclear or saying that they interpreted it differently isn’t wrong in itself, but, when circumstances make this necessary, it’s a potential problem that could result in more miscommunication in the future if not addressed now.
Students feel secure when they know what’s going on, and there’s less fear that rules are being interpreted to favor certain candidates. Our next SGA administration should tighten these rules to allow for a transparent election process and proper communication to and with students.
Leave a Reply