Lack of USAC election opposition hinders quality

Every year around this time people start gearing up for USAC
elections. If you’re a freshman and haven’t experienced
the furor and tumult of the student council elections at UCLA,
prepare to see something a lot more gritty and harsh than the
typical election in high school. There’s more name-calling
and finger-pointing in the average USAC election than in a lot of
national races. Opposing candidates bash each other’s prior
records of service and present themselves as the only ones capable
of handling the office properly. All in all, they engage in a
mudslinging, weeklong dogfight.

It’s strange to see, among all the hustle and bustle
surrounding elections, the few areas (offices) of tranquility. With
regards to these offices no, or very little, campaigning goes on.
There is no name-calling and no comparison between opposing
candidates’ records. Very little is presented in terms of
future goals, and (here comes the kicker) no opposing
candidate.

It is my strong belief that the lack of choice in candidates
running for the offices of USAC commissioners is extremely bad for
the student body. In each of the past two elections there have been
between three and four commissioner positions that have had
candidates running unopposed. What does this do? It contributes to
a culture of stagnation and a lack of responsibility within those
commissions and by their officers.

When no one contests an office, the individual running
doesn’t have to present any ideas and opinions about the
office and why they want it to the student body. This is bad, both
because the ideas candidates have may not be in line with what the
student body wants and also because a candidate with no plans about
what to do when in office may be elected.

The election period is an important resource to the student
body, because it makes views and ideas come to light. It allows the
student body to really get a feel for the officers we are
electing.

The electoral process also makes a candidate invest a lot of
themselves into getting the office. This ensures that only those
individuals who are truly passionate about the office get elected.
Not having an opponent to go up against sets up a situation in
which someone who doesn’t really care about what they are
doing gets elected.

Also, the very act of running for office against an opponent
serves as a trial-by-fire that really forces a candidate to examine
their priorities and see whether they are willing to invest the
necessary time to earn the office. What’s more, it makes them
more likely to devote more time and energy to the office once they
have been elected.

One big argument against my claim that unopposed candidates are
bad for the student body is the fact that a lot of the unopposed
candidates are in-house candidates (having worked within the
commission before) and are therefore best able to represent the
needs of the student body. I don’t feel that this is
necessarily true. Oftentimes people from outside the organization
can come in with fresh ideas and perspectives. Most commissions
also have a large group of qualified staffers working within them,
all of whom have the potential to do a good job as commissioner.
So, why should only one of those staff members run for office?

The entire premise that a candidate anointed by the previous
year’s administration is going to do the best job for that
office is ridiculous. You can generalize that a previous
year’s administration did a good or decent job and that
electing someone who is in-line with their views is going to
continue that trend. But even if this were true (which it
isn’t), it still limits the commission to the viewpoints that
were held by that previous administration. It doesn’t allow
room for change or for debate about changes that need to occur.

This is UCLA ““ a school with over 20,000 undergraduate
students. It’s silly that among 20,000 students there are not
enough willing individuals to contest 13 elected offices. If only
for the sake of furthering debate and discussion about the campus
issues that affect us all, you should make the effort to run and
get your views heard by other students.

Abraham is the former campus safety director for the Student
Welfare Commission.