Online voting has yet to affect ad campaigns

Despite the dramatic effect of online voting on voter participation, pre-election advertising by candidates and on-campus organizations has remained essentially unchanged since the elections moved online last spring. During last week's elections to fill three open Senate seats and to vote on an amendment to add a conservative culture representative to the Senate found the campaigning to be limited in content and scope.

Despite speculation that online voting would affect candidates' advertising campaigns, there has been little change due to strict ELBO guidelines. "We still haven't opened too much of online advertising to them yet," Coletti said.

ELBO rules forbid candidates from advertising their campaigns on websites, even sites not affiliated with the University. Candidates are allowed to e-mail one member of an organization and ask that the e-mail be forwarded to the whole group, according to Coletti, but the e-mail has to first be approved by ELBO.

Campus organizations, such as conservative publication The Primary Source, which sponsored the amendment calling for a conservative culture representative, do not face the same advertising restrictions as candidates. Since the amendment last week was proposed and voted on so quickly, "we didn't have specific rules," Coletti said. "We expected them to present the public with the correct information."

The Source exercised its advertising rights liberally. "We encouraged the staff and friends [of the Source] to send e-mails to other groups of which they are members, hoping to get others informed and voting," Source Editor-in-Chief Megan Liotta said.

ELBO limitations on advertising in this manner are unclear. "It's hard for us to regulate that," Coletti said.

The Source also used more traditional means to push their cause. "We advertised for the amendment vote mostly by word of mouth," Liotta said. The Source answered questions on the proposed amendment at an open forum Wednesday night and chalked slogans around campus, Liotta said.

Advertising by opponents of Amendment 3 was also affected by the time crunch. Philip Martin, who helped Radix post fliers and chalk in opposition to the amendment, said the short time "affected the effort we put in to the advertising." Radix members only learned of the issue the day before elections, so "there was really a sense of urgency," Martin said.

Because the time frame was so short, the groups in opposition to Amendment 3 relied primarily on list-serves, or mass e-mails, to advertise their cause. While this raises some questions about whether students are learning both sides of the issue, students who participated in this form of advertising say e-mails are just another way to launch dialogue.

Although "e-mails probably gave a perspective about it," according to Rachel Jones, who forwarded the e-mails against Amendment 3 to the Radix list, "I don't think it discouraged people from looking into the other side," Jones said. "It let people know about the issue... there wasn't any general announcement about it."

The Source would also have tried more methods of advertising given more time, Liotta said. Liotta might have organized "more than one forum, maybe even a debate a week or so ahead of time." Given the short time frame, "we looked and put the word out that we were looking for the other side to come out and talk, but nobody stepped up," Liotta said.

Difficulties in mobilizing the advertising campaigns may have affected the election results, Liotta said. Ample time for advertising is necessary because of the electorate's resistance to hearing both sides, Liotta said. Voters "go into politics with their minds made up."

"We wish more people had the political initiative to educate themselves about the issues," Liotta said.

Many students felt that neither side ran a well-informed advertising campaign. "I don't think enough information got out at all," Martin said. "Most freshmen didn't even know there was anything coming up."

Although countless fliers were posted both for and against the referendum, explanations of the amendment's advantages or disadvantages were inadequate, and it is difficult to decide how to vote in just one day, Martin said.

The election's lack of informed debate is apparently unrelated to the new system of online voting. "Online voting makes it easier for people to vote in general, whether they are informed or not," Liotta said. "The breakdown of informed versus uninformed voters is probably the same no matter what."

Online voting, first implemented in last spring's general elections, has had a significant effect on voter turnout. Prior to online voting, there was a turnout of 20 to 25 percent at best, according to Joe Coletti, chair of the Tufts Community Union Elections Board (ELBO). Since last spring, turnout has been in the upper 30s.

Online elections for Tufts Community Union (TCU) president reaped "an even bigger gap," Coletti said. Turnout had traditionally been between 30 and 40 percent, but last spring's presidential election drew 52 percent of students, the highest voter turnout ever.

The ease of online voting and ELBO's election reminder e-mails, sent to students on election day, are said to be responsible for the leaps in voter participation, since "more people know it's election day," Coletti said.