Low turnout spurs talk of changes

By Robert Salonga and Marion
Wise
Daily Bruin Reporters

Despite helping to create the Internet, UCLA has yet to apply
this technology to its regular undergraduate student elections
““ a step that other UCs have already taken.

With only about 20 percent of undergraduate students voting this
year ““ the third-lowest total in more than a decade ““
it could be time to seek alternative methods of voting, said
Elections Board Adviser Mike Cohn.

“I believe that if the elections were online, there would
be higher numbers,” said Cohn, who has served as E-Board
adviser for 12 years. “It would be far more convenient for
undergraduates at UCLA. Also, candidate statements can be made
readily available, and organizations’ endorsements can be
posted nearby.”

After the Graduate Students Association implemented an online
voting system for its elections this year, turnout nearly doubled
to 15 percent, whereas in the past decade it usually hovered
between 6 and 8 percent.

Due in part to a weeklong online elections process, GSA broke
the 10 percent threshold needed for approved referenda to take
effect, a feat GSA had not accomplished in more than a decade.

“We’ve never explored this format and wanted to see
if it was a good alternative for GSA because a lot of (graduate
students) aren’t on campus,” said Emily Jarvis,
director of elections for GSA.

According to Jarvis, there were few complications with the
system, which ran through the My.UCLA Web site. The only problems
voters encountered was their lack of familiarity with the Web site,
which she said was due to graduate students not using the site
often.

The Undergraduate Students Association Council ““ which
held a special online election in December when Evan Okamura was
elected to fill a vacant external vice president seat ““
rejected former E-Board Chair Alex Kaplan’s proposal for
another online process for its spring elections. Council members
cited security reasons and the inability to prevent electioneering
at home computers. Electioneering, a common voting law that
prevents campaigning within a certain distance of voting polls, is
set at 75 feet at UCLA.

Jarvis said electioneering was not a huge concern for GSA.

“For GSA, the main problem is not overly aggressive
campaigning, but voter apathy,” she said. “We’re
all on the honor system, and candidates agreed not to send e-mail
to voters during the process.”

UC Riverside also used an online voting system for the first
time this year. Like GSA, it reached the minimum voting turnout
needed to approve referenda, as more than the required 20 percent
of voters went to the polls.

Sandy Wong, elections chair for the Associated Students of UCR,
said there were virtually no problems with the process, adding that
students were allowed to vote 24 hours a day during its two-day
election.

Another advantage of online voting, Wong said, was the short
time needed to tabulate results.

“Most of the votes were counted immediately, but it took a
couple of hours to process the write-in candidates,” Wong
said.

At UCR, public polling stations were monitored by elections
staff. Though home voting was unsupervised, Wong said she received
no complaints about voter harassment.

At UC San Diego, access and efficiency were key points in
pushing for online voting.

“It seemed the campus was moving in a direction where
technology was the focus,” said Jeff Dodge, internal vice
president and president-elect of the Associated Students of
UCSD.

Voting numbers at UCSD actually dropped 4 percent in 1999, the
first year online voting was used. The following year, turnout
returned to its pre-online level of approximately 24 percent.

“Students were getting acclimated to voting at home and it
decreased the political involvement of candidates,” Dodge
said.

He added that the online process in some ways improved voting
security.

“Having online voting is really a screening process.
There’s no errors or discrepancy because you have to put in
your student ID number and password to actually vote,” he
said.

Though there were concerns that organizations with access to
identification numbers could vote in a block, Dodge said, no such
incidents have been reported.

Like UCLA, UC Berkeley’s student government rejected
implementing online voting in its student government elections.
According to Stephen Siringoringo, deputy chief of staff for the
president of Associated Students of UC Berkeley, senators cited
conflicts with bylaws and the lack of control over
electioneering.

Online voting became available at UC Santa Cruz in 1997, but
voter participation did not change significantly.

In recent years, UCLA’s undergraduate voter turnout
wavered between approximately 23 and 30 percent, with the
exceptions of 1992 and 1998 ““ years with the lowest voter
turnouts in recent history. But unlike this year, the low turnouts
in the ’92 and ’98 elections had more apparent
explanations.

The second day of the ’92 elections was marred by civil
unrest and city-wide riots sparked by the verdict of the Rodney
King trial. According to Cohn, polling stations were forced to
close early because of a city-wide shutdown.

In the ’98 elections, only 24 candidates ran for the 13
council spots, compared to 41 the year before.

“That year, it was a very, very uncompetitive
election,” Cohn said.

Cohn, surprised by the low turnout this year, said the E-Board
advertised as much as it had in previous years.

“There were no referenda on the ballot, so there was no
major issue,” Cohn said. “This was not an overly
competitive year; there were no runoffs. The number of candidates
was less than the number that we usually have.”

Of the 23 students that ran for office this year, five ran
unopposed for their offices. This was only the second time in the
past 10 years no referendum appeared on the ballot, the other time
being 1997. Additionally, for the first time since 1998, USAC did
not face runoff elections.

General Representative-elect David Dahle said online elections
would have resulted in a higher turnout.

“We don’t have any absentee ballot or any way of
reaching students who are abroad. I see no ill effects, as long as
the security is tight,” Dahle said. “It allows people
to be more informed.”

Jarvis added that voters found the presence of candidate
pictures and statements for the GSA elections helpful.

“If they didn’t know the candidate themselves, they
could now make an informed decision about someone they’ve
never seen before,” she said.

According to Cohn, an online election would be cheaper, costing
about $2,000 to $3,000 to set up and monitor elections, as opposed
to $20,000 for the current paper ballot process.

EFFECTS OF ONLINE VOTING Other UCs have
turned to online voting for student elections. Percentages indicate
the proportion of a school’s sutdent population that voted. Unless
otherwise specified, undergraduate elections are shown.
SOURCE: Daily Bruin Archives, GSA, USAC Elections Board, Berkeley,
Riverside, and San Diego campuses Original graphic by ADAM
BROWN/Daily Bruin Web adaptation by MONICA KWONG/Daily Bruin Senior
Staff