Students reflect on USG, recent elections

Divya Jakatdar and Michelle Lu emerged from the 2023 Undergraduate Student Government election as the president- and vice-president-elect after earning 38.1% of cast votes. But a commonly abysmal turnout — just 19.5% of all undergraduates, a 2% drop from last year’s turnout — had some students, surveyed and interviewed by the Daily Trojan, voicing concerns about a disconnect between their elected officials and the rest of the student body.

The Daily Trojan sent a survey to undergraduate students March 1 regarding their participation in the recent elections, their thoughts on USG in general as well as their outreach. The survey received 31 responses. 

Respondents were first asked if they had voted in the recent election, to which 61.3% said yes. 41.7% of those who did not vote said that they “did not want to.” An additional 25% of respondents said that they did not know how, 8.3% said that they had no time and another 8.3% said that it was because they did not know anything about the candidates. The final 16.6% of respondents provided their own answers, including one who said that they were not aware the election was happening in the first place. 

When it came to the candidates and their policies, respondents appeared to be rather in the dark. On a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is “very uninformed” and 5 is “very informed,” the average answer was a 2.4, with 38.7% of respondents choosing 1. Respondents said that any information they did get was obtained mostly from campus media such as the Daily Trojan (22%), social media (19%) and friends (6%). Sixteen percent of respondents said that they were unable to find information about the candidates and their policies.

Another aspect that may have led to a further lack of candidate information is that only 19% of respondents said that they had watched the USG Presidential Debate. The same proportion said that they did not watch it but had read a recap later, and 61% said that they did not watch the debate at all. Of those who did not watch the debate, the most common reasons were “I did not want to” (48%), “I had no time” (24%) and not knowing the debate was occurring (22%). 

Respondents’ knowledge of the voting process fared only slightly better, as the average answer on the same 1-5 scale was a 2.7. The most common rating on this question was again a 1. Information on the voting process, respondents said, was found largely through social media (41%), friends (16%) and campus media (6.5%). An additional 22.6% of respondents said that they were unable to find information on the voting process.

Emmett Liljegren, a sophomore majoring in human biology, said this was the first time he had voted, and only because he had a personal connection to one of the candidates. 

“I usually don’t vote at all because I feel like I don’t really know what’s going on or care about it,” Liljegren said. “But this year, one of my good friends was running for vice president, so I wanted to vote for her.” 

Lex Yu, a junior majoring in computer science games and President of USC Queers in Engineering, Science, and Technology, said they only learned about the elections when several candidates reached out to them about coming to speak at a club meeting. They added, however, that the candidate platforms seemed to be lacking. 

“In the emails that [the candidates] sent they didn’t clearly state their platform,” Yu said. “They were kind of the same thing … ‘we care about accessibility’ or whatever. But that’s so vague.”

Yu said because of this, they resorted mainly to other modes of searching for election information.

“I found most of the information through Instagram or through the Google Doc links that were on the voting website when the voting opened,” they said. “So I just read the Google Docs on the day of voting.”

Other than election knowledge, general knowledge of USG itself appears to be low. Just under half (48%) of respondents could not name any USG initiatives from this school year and an additional 22.6% were unsure if they could name one. Even some of those who offered names of initiatives either wrongly attributed them to USG or named one that is not yet in place, such as the digital ID cards promised by many campaigns this election cycle. 

On a related subsequent question, respondents indicated that they felt USG may not be aware of student needs. Just over 38% said that they felt USG was not aware of student needs, 35% said that they were unsure and only 25% said that they felt USG was aware. 

Andalib Maani, a freshman majoring in English creative writing, said that part of the reason for his disinterest in voting this year was because the candidates did not speak on issues that were important to him.

“I don’t remember any of them speaking on sanitary issues,” Maani said, “especially regarding cafeterias and dorms.”

Liljegren said he thinks the issue of USG’s potential disconnect from the student body may be because of a lack of transparency.

“The issue is every time else in the year in which nobody has any idea what USG is doing, because I feel like they don’t send out updates, they don’t send out any explanation of what they do,” he said. “The only thing that I know that they do is they fund other student orgs … I feel like a lot of people just don’t care because they don’t know what they do.”

Liljegren said he only felt somewhat informed this year because of his friend that was running for office and that even upon further research he could not find much information on prior USG work. 

“I looked back at the campaign promises and the presidents from the year before just because I was curious,” he said. “I have no idea if these people actually did any of these things that they said they were going to do.”

Both Liljegren and Yu said that they didn’t know until recently that USG’s president and vice president were paid positions. Yu in particular said that they thought this should be something that is communicated more clearly to students. 

“There should be more transparency from both the school and from USG about funding and money allocation within USG,” they said. “I didn’t know that it’s basically a job … more students should be aware of that because I think most people don’t know that there’s so much money involved with USG.” 

Ultimately, Liljegren thinks that USG means well but isn’t necessarily doing enough to connect with their constituents.

“The people in USG have the best intention, and they’re trying to make the Uuniversity a better place,” Liljegren said. “I just wish that there was more communication and more outreach done … because I feel like everybody in USG knows everybody in USG enough like their group and they don’t really expand outside of that.” 

In an interview with the Daily Trojan, Omar Habhab, chair of USG’s Elections Commission, said that USG is working to improve their connection with the student body.

“Before my involvement with USG, I really didn’t know what USG was,” Habhab said. “I fully relate to those students who don’t really understand what USG is. But after my involvement, I realized the primary goal that USG aims for is bridging this gap between the org and the student body.”

Habhab said the Elections Commission recommended beginning campaign workshops and outreach earlier in the year to give the candidates and USG in general more time to speak to other students. He acknowledged, however, that the job is still very difficult. 

“From personal experience after being involved with the org and working to promote civic engagement with election season,” he said, “I realized no matter how much effort and work you produce, it’s going to be very challenging to reach the entire student body.”