Abstention, what it can mean

Author: AUSTEN LEVIHN-COON '07

I was disappointed to hear the condemnation of the abstention votes in last week's Campus [Applause for Transparency 5/4/06]. While the necessity for abstentions is disappointing, these votes are not counterproductive. There is much that can be learned from the large number of abstentions and blame should not be placed on the students who abstained. Students abstained for a reason. Perhaps they did not support the candidates or their platforms or were put off by the debates and the letter inserted into The Middlebury Campus. Or perhaps students did not know enough about the candidates to make an intelligent choice. With the limited two week allotment of campaign time and the single debate it is difficult for students to get to know the candidates.

In a democratic system you cannot simply choose the best of two evils, you need to support candidates that represent you, and you need to be proactive about it. When given a choice of two candidates, both of whom do not represent a voter, the voter should not support one simply to say that they cast their vote. This is not the purpose of a democratic system of government. As can be seen worldwide in countries struggling with corrupt governments, being forced to support a candidate you do not support does not create a legitimate democracy. In our SGA elections, with no write-in option available, the only responsible recourse after candidates had been announced was for voters to abstain.

The classic response to this argument is, "If you don't support the candidates why didn't you run?" And while I am personally going abroad this coming year, this does not completely explain the necessity of the question, nor answer why nobody else ran. First of all there is no way for students to know that there will be no candidate they support on the ballot come election time. Once the candidates are announced there is no way for more candidates to become involved. At least one person, David Wrangham, attempted to run only to be caught in the bureaucratic loopholes and prevented from being a legitimate candidate. In addition, there was very little publicity concerning becoming a candidate. The only information I received about running for SGA was disbursed by two emails a few days before a mandatory candidates meeting. The two candidates that did run for SGA president, Alina Levina and Alex Stanton, were already involved in the SGA. Perhaps with more outreach by the Student Government Association students not already members of the student government would be more likely to become involved.

The SCCOCC election was a completely different story, with candidates not presenting convincing platforms or offering compelling arguments at the debate, resulting in an even larger number of abstentions. Even with three candidates running many students simply did not see a good choice for the position. However, perhaps this is not the fault of the candidates but points to underlying faults in our SGA. If the student body does not see the SGA as a forceful and competent body then we will not take it seriously. The Student Government Association is our creation and can be a voice for the students on campus, but only if it acts competently, adequately capturing our concerns and promoting them effectively. If this is not the case, then it is the job of the students to reform our representation.