"For every election we organize, we strive to ensure fairness and equality," reads the mission statement of the Elections Commission (ECOM). Unfortunately, the handling of last week's votes for freshman Tufts Community Union (TCU) senators, Freshman Class Council members and school-wide referenda on community representatives led to elections that were anything but fair and equal.
ECOM's errors in this semester's elections have thrown the commission's ineffectiveness into the spotlight. The commission, which oversees elections for student government bodies, has long dealt with election-related complaints, from contested results to voting-software errors. In the past year, however, the blame for elections-gone-wrong has too often fallen on ECOM.
In the spring, for instance, a number of complaints were filed against ECOM's conduct. Sam Wallis, at the time a junior running for TCU president while studying abroad, was ruled to have overspent his budget when he chose to fly back to Tufts from his study-abroad locale in order to campaign in person. He filed an appeal and criticized ECOM's poor handling of the matter, saying that he was not informed of the ruling, and that it contradicted previous discussions with ECOM. In the same election season, complaints were filed over the inclusion of Referenda 3 and 4 in the April 28 presidential ballot, as they were not adequately advertised prior to the vote. The vote resulted in both referenda passing, despite the fact that they were competing proposals; those referenda went to a revote on Wednesday.
But that vote took place amid mistakes on the part of ECOM members. Not only did the commission make a technical error that led to a 24-hour postponement of the freshman vote, but its members hastily and incorrectly blamed the oversight on an outside voting-software company before the officers even consulted the company. The election and the associated informational forums were not adequately advertised in advance by ECOM; students more often relied on Facebook messages from groups advocating a certain side or candidate.
Tardy communication with TuftsLife and a lack of initiative on the part of ECOM members led to a lack of an official banner or on-time event listing on the popular student portal. ECOM also submitted an advertisement to the Daily, featuring a spread on the election candidates and a brief statement from each. The spread, however, was put together poorly and treated the candidates unfairly and unequally by omitting many of their names and the positions for which they were running.
Relations between the candidates and ECOM are strained: Advertising deadlines have not been met and the voting procedure is under question. One winning candidate even described the campaign process as "chaotic." ECOM confronted these criticisms by denying the brunt of the responsibility, blaming communication errors and saying they advertised adequately through their website, ridiculously assuming that students knew to go to ECOM's poorly organized website for election information.
In the spring, the Daily criticized ECOM for failing to properly inform students about upcoming votes and for inadequately publicizing the content of referenda. Over the semesters, the body has demonstrated a pattern of mismanaged elections and irresponsibility.
Considering the importance of campus elections, this is a problem that cannot remain unresolved. We believe that the evidence shows that current ECOM members are largely responsible for the deficiencies of the recent election, particularly when considering how many problems could have easily been avoided.
An effort is under way among student government officials to reform bylaws, TCU President Sam Wallis, a senior, told the Daily's news department. While the bylaws' vagueness is clearly an issue and a review is more than welcome, the student body must also demand individual accountability from the paid student members serving on the commission. It is predominantly a matter of meeting deadlines, fulfilling the requirements already set forth in the body's bylaws and historically followed, and sufficiently discharging its mandate. To make our microcosm of democracy fair and equal, we require a more concerted effort from those charged with its management.
We demand a review of ECOM members by the TCU Judiciary, which appoints the members of the commission. Although ECOM officers are students, their $500-per-term stipend places them under a different level of scrutiny -— and they must be held accountable to the student body, which finances their pay.
Student elections are important, and we must expect better from those charged with carrying them out. ECOM's record of failure has been the result of poor bylaws compounded by the ineptitude of its commissioners, and it has persisted for too long.
