USAC election code changes proposed to streamline voting

The undergraduate student government will vote Feb. 22 on a proposal that would amend the council’s election code.

If passed, the amendment would shorten the duration of endorsement hearings and replace the single transferable vote system of electing general representatives with a plurality system. The Election Board proposed the change Feb. 15 in hopes of streamlining the voting process. Concerns were raised that the amendment may undermine the chances of candidates who do not run under one of the two slates at UCLA. Slates are groups of candidates who pool their resources and run on similar platforms.

Under the current system, there is a quota that candidates must meet to be elected. If a candidate receives extra votes, these votes are redistributed to voters’ second and third preferences. Additionally, if voters select a candidate that does not meet the voting quota, their votes are similarly reallocated. This system aims to reduce the number of wasted votes.

The proposed plurality system would not reallocate votes that exceed the quota.

This system would be clearer to students, because their votes would not be split among other candidates, said Patrick Ahrens, the board’s chair. Instead, the top three candidates with the most votes would win.

“It’s simple and democratic, and that was our aim,” said Ahrens, a fourth-year political science student.

During a private meeting, the board drew up the amendment after recalling previous conversations with USAC representatives. Ahrens said the board did not consult faculty advisers or professors prior to making the decision.

However, he said he met with representatives from MyUCLA, who calculated the 2010 spring election results using the two different systems. Both methods arrived at the same three winners.

The single transferable vote system was first instituted in 2005 to increase representation among a growing number of student organizations, said Berky Nelson, an adviser to the USAC. He said students vying to change the system may not fully understand its original intentions.

The single transferable vote system gives more opportunity to third-party candidates, said Michael Thies, a political science professor. Because voters can rank their candidate preferences, a third-party candidate only needs to be the third-favorite overall to win a seat, he said.

“Generally, plurality favors two-party competition,” Thies said. “Ideologically, parties stand at positions where the most voters are, which is usually in the middle. If an independent party comes in, they can beat one candidate but will lose to the other.”

Students tend to vote by slate, said Thach Nguyen, former general representative for USAC and a fifth-year cognitive science student.

If students continue to vote by slate, Thies said changing the voting method would have little impact. Instead, election results would mostly depend on the effectiveness of individual campaigns.
Nelson said he had not heard about the proposal until Feb. 15 and did not receive a draft at the meeting.

“We can’t give advice if we don’t know anything,” he said.
However, Ahrens said the board’s decision was not spontaneous, but resulted from an ongoing dialogue between students and council members.

He said students were often confused regarding which candidate their votes ended up supporting, so a more transparent system was needed.

Although the current system is difficult to explain, it should not be the foundation for swapping an election system, Thies said.

“It’s not that complicated, so (the Election Board) probably has an reason to change it,” he said.

USAC general representative Matt Spring said council members will speak with the board and administrative advisers before they vote Feb. 22.

“I believe the Election Board has the greatest intentions, which (makes) the election process more democratic and easy to understand,” Spring said.