Monopolizing USG elections hinders democracy
With the close of this year’s Undergraduate Student Government presidential elections, USC essentially witnessed a shoo-in victory with president-elects Hannah Woodworth and Nivea Krishnan. As the sole ticket on the ballot with only two write-in competitors, Woodworth and Krishnan easily won with 55% of the ballot votes, culminating in 2,453 votes according to Tuesday’s USG senate meeting.
In an ideal circumstance, students would have come across various tickets to find a sincere, competent candidate that accurately represented them in their visions for their college experience. The key word is variation, which elections this year failed to provide.
With only one ticket on the ballot (not including write-in candidates), the lack of diversity paints a disturbing and grim future upholding democratic processes. The call for competent electorates is stronger than ever, but a one-ticket election makes representing a student body of 21,000 undergraduate students virtually impossible.
Those unfamiliar with USG may not fully grasp the severity of this issue. According to its website, USG serves as the “official governing body of undergraduate students at [USC]” and arguably controls a significant portion in defining the student experience at the University.
Allowing a one-party ticket to control the ballots in this manner sets a disturbing precedent for future elections.
Students also contribute to the majority of USG’s annual budget under the Undergraduate Student Programming Fee, which consists of a mandatory $64 fee credited to each semester. Seeing as students directly contribute toward USG’s hefty budget of $2.5 million for the 2021-2022 school year, the representation of student voices becomes all the more significant and should be amplified through the running candidates.
However, a one-party candidacy offers no range in representation for the 21,000 undergraduate students at USC. This year, the Hannah-Nivea ticket appeared to be the front-runners to win this election, not because of its vision to improve the student experience but due to a lack of proper competition.
By monopolizing the ballots in this manner, tickets may lose their incentive for competition, allowing for complacency to replace the original motivations candidates held to appeal to the majority of voters.
Furthermore, the lack of tickets may allow for potentially incompetent candidates to enter an influential position. Candidates are less likely to be held accountable for their controversial stances, and lose the incentive to improve.
To combat this, Woodworth and Krishnan have greater obligations to fulfill their campaign promises. This ticket must now demonstrate its capabilities for the presidential and vice presidential seat, which in previous years, the election would have accomplished.
But, like many candidates, the duo has its flaws and imperfections that need addressing and improving. Beyond a platform point with intangible goals and abstract visions based on “accountability, advocacy and accessibility,” as stated in the duo’s mission statement, the ticket has found themselves in controversy, even before its election.
Although this aspect of the ticket’s interview with the Daily Trojan Editorial Board received backlash from the student body, as demonstrated by Instagram comments on Woodworth and Nivea’s promotional account, the duo’s status as the only ticket on the ballot cemented them as strong candidates for presidency.
Woodworth and Krishnan must realize that they cannot attribute their election success to their own competency. Regardless of its propositions to improve the school or even their visions for change, the Hannah-Nivea ticket’s success is largely due to its singular status on the ticket ballot.
The Daily Trojan Editorial Board’s decision to not endorse a specific ticket, unlike previous years, signaled the failure of this year’s election candidates to accurately represent the student body. The monopolization of the ballot, though unintentional, points to an unfair and undemocratic election.
With rampant issues and contentions currently ongoing on campus, such as the Greek life controversy and coronavirus regulations, the call for competent leadership rings louder every day. The USG president should lead the school to a better place, and we can only hope Woodworth and Krishnan follow through on their promises to do just that.