For Round One of elections this spring, the All Campus Election Task Force waived the requirement for candidates to gather signatures to establish their candidacy. Therefore, generally speaking, candidates did not walk around, talking to students, introducing themselves, and asking for support in the time leading up to campaigning and elections. I don’t know about other students, but for me, because I have not previously been directly involved in SGA or class board work, the main way I knew elections were happening was through being approached, in person, during lunch in Blanchard or Prospect or some other time, and asked for my signature. This feature of elections is important. It impels students who are running for office to be more purposefully engaged with the student body—face to face—and take their campaign seriously.

I’m sure there are various problems with All Campus Elections at Mount Holyoke, but I would suggest that among the most pressing is the problem of apathy. Perhaps students don’t have faith in the democratic process, perhaps they don’t care about SGA or perhaps they don’t think it is significant to their personal lives. Whatever it is, the vast majority of students aren’t voting. There are often candidates that win because they run uncontested, and there are often vacant offices once elections have run their course.

I have voted in every campus-wide election at Mount Holyoke. But I myself have never before considered running for office, not before this election, in which I’m running for 2010 Young Alumnae Trustee. This is very unusual for me. Campaigning—telling people to “vote for me!”—seemed to require a certain level of self-promotion with which I am usually uncomfortable. What if someone is more compelled by another candidate? They should vote for that person, as far as I’m concerned. But I’ve had to get over that principled mental block, and trust that those who read my candidate statement, those who see my signs, those who ask me why they should vote for me—are looking at me critically, and will ultimately decide for themselves whether or not I’m worth voting for.

So this is my theory. I trust Mount Holyoke students to be smart in their voting decisions. But if no one campaigns, if no one petitions for signatures, if no one self-advocates, then Mount Holyoke has nothing to examine, nothing to be critical of, nothing to discuss, and no reason to vote. And then candidates view the student body as apathetic, and struggle to make their elections meaningful; some become disillusioned with the whole process. Does anyone on this campus even care? Fewer people can find their hearts in it, and then fewer people muster up the courage to run. It is a vicious cycle. The whole system collapses on itself for loss of that very energy that keeps it alive and well—an energy derived from the student body.

I do not know everything there is to know about All Campus Elections at Mount Holyoke. I’m sure there are structural changes that would improve the status of elections. Indeed, in this second round of elections, candidates, such as myself, have been required to gather signatures to establish our candidacy. I think this is awesome. I had a great time meeting people and having great conversations that made me think ever-more critically about my positions, my platform and my overall campaign. From Mount Holyoke women, I am completely unsurprised.

Despite structural changes such as this, there is more lacking, and there is more at stake. It is not enough. We need participation, we need ambition, we need (healthy) competition and we need leadership. We need to care. And finally, in the spirit of our founder’s words, perhaps we must “go where no one else will go, do what no one else will do” … perhaps we need to believe in ourselves, to have to audacity to throw our own hats in the ring.

Related posts:

1. Elections stir controversy on campus
2. Elections for SGA positions to be reheld
3. All-Campus Elections Return for Their Second Year
4. ACE Task Force Improves Campus Elections
5. Contested elections and online ballots combat voter apathy