Burnt Orange Report

Let the Ticket System Burn

By Zach Neumann

Tonight Student Government will be voting on a bill that would fundamentally alter the nature of SG Elections here at the University. I am very much in favor of this proposal and here is why. (I apologize for grammatical errors, I’m writing this in a hurry.)

1.It makes student government considerably more democratic than it is today—

Right now to be a student government representative, you have to be a participant in one of a few organizations on campus. These include spirit groups (like the Orange Jackets and Tejas), Fraternities/Sororities (See Chi- Omega) and mainstream political organizations (like the University Democrats). In other words, tickets recruit students to run for office based on who can gain the most support from the biggest organizations on campus. While this is sound political strategy, it is very harmful to the development of a democratic SG. Students not plugged into the SG pipeline of Greek, Spirit and (to a lesser extent) political organizations have no opportunity to serve or even participate (before you angrily comment, realize that I am aware that anyone can volunteer for campaigns or apply for appointments). Thus, instead of having an intellectually and economically diverse assembly, tickets instead tend to be composed of suburban, upper middle class students with fairly moderate political views (and if I might add, a penchant for towing the administration’s line). The abolition of the ticket system would allow students from underrepresented parts of campus to take part in the decision making process. Something they have long deserved.

2. SG needs new blood-- The narrow and highly discriminate stratification of SG leadership among certain groups on campus has led to the election of several weak (although popular) presidents. As I said before, if you do not have strong affiliations with several spirit groups and the Freshman Leadership Organization (the slave labor force for SG campaigns) you will not be SG president. As a result, hopeful candidates for SG president do not spend time developing contacts at the capital or developing their advocacy skills but instead spend most of their college careers cultivating other suburbanites in campus based social clubs. While this cultivation is understandable, it leads to exceptionally weak leadership. Though presidents have, in the past, overcome such obstacles, such instances are rare. The elimination of the ticket system would allow students of a political persuasion with strong skills to make viable campaigns for office. This would lead to stronger recruitment in all positions as students would be forced to rely on raw political talents instead of their club friends. Not only would this lead to a wider array of legislation, but it would also make SG a much more formidable advocate for student interests. Though people like Matt Stolhandske, Jordan Buckley and Andrew Dobbs will never be elected SG president as long as the ticket system persists, their candidacies would gain real weight if they were allowed to take on other candidates without the presence of a large ticket apparatus. This would give SG the opportunity to develop some solid leadership.

3. The Need for Ticket Unity— Opponents of the bill (like Omar Ochoa and Grant Stanis) have argued that tickets need to be united so they can achieve certain goals within the context of the assembly. This argument is irrelevant. As most SG presidents will tell you, the assembly is fairly worthless. Though they can pass all the resolutions they want, these heavily debated pieces of paper do very little in achieving student interests. Lobbying by the executive and members of the assembly goes much further in getting things done both on campus and at the capitol. Eliminating the ticket system would allow for politically talented students to be elected, improving the efficacy of SG even if it is at the cost of unity. However, in my opinion, relative SG unity is a given. If you compare platforms from the past several years… gasp… they are almost exactly the same. Is this because SG people lack original thought? No. It’s because student interests are unchanging. Everyone wants lower tuition, more student services, greater access to parking and a better answer to diversity issues. Since platforms are fundamentally similar, elections tend to come down to who will do a better job representing these limited ideas in office (at least hypothetically-- in actuality it seems that people vote for their friends or fellow club members). By eliminating the ticket system, student government elections will become a contest for who has the best political skills (given that all ideas are about the same). People who have better political skills also tend to be better at harassing the administration and lobbying the legislature, qualities that are desperately needed right now. Before I close my SG unity rant, allow me to also point out that SG unity has resulted in some of the most unoriginal and mundane legislation (not to mention a lack of it) over the past two years.

Ok guys, I have to write a paper, so I’m going to leave it at that. I invite all comments. Good luck at the meeting tonight everyone.