Breaking down the trends

Running a student election at a university as big as ours is no small feat, and the University Board of Elections deserves a great deal of praise for a job (mostly) quite well done.
That said, this year’s encouraging voter turnout was solely a product of the honor referendum’s presence on the ballot. As Geoff Skelley points out, turnout trends over the past five or so years directly vary according to whether or not a controversial referendum is included in the election that year. The record for overall turnout still belongs to 2005 (with 40 percent), a year in which students were asked both to vote on an amendment changing the honor code and on an opinion poll querying if they were interested in honor finding alternatives to the single sanction. This year’s numbers compare quite favorably to non-referenda years, and similarly to years with referenda on the ballot.This isn’t to say we shouldn’t be encouraged by this year’s 38% turnout. Any such year of high student participation is cause for celebration. It just means we need to be realistic about the context of voting. Certain proposals will always garner more attention than others, and amendments that immediately impact student self-governance (like the honor code) are far more important to students than actually deciding which students get to fill the chairs of Student Council, the University Judiciary Committee, etc. Since amendments are very clear-cut in terms of their effects while candidates can only effect so much unilateral change without voter approval, this trend is both understandable and to some extent desirable. Ideally turnout would be near 100 percent for each election; this never happens even on a national level in the U.S., so we temper our expectations accordingly. All things considered, honor amendments are among the more important of electoral decisions students will have to make regarding self-governance during their time here.
Another trend that would be interesting to dissect is the turnout breakdown by year. First-years and second-years trumped the upperclassmen with 59% and 52% turnout, respectively. Third-years had 49% while fourth-years had 37%. The overall undergraduate rate was 49% and the overall graduate student rate was 16%. The undergraduate breakdown by year is curious yet predictable. Younger students are probably both more likely to have free time to vote and to see that these decisions will affect them the most (as they have the most time left at the University). Older students are probably more likely to be busier, to have become disenchanted with what they see as inaction on the part of student leaders, and to realize that electoral decisions will impact them for only a short time before they graduate. Master’s and doctoral students appear to just feel far more apathetic to student self-governance than undergrads. Again, this is fairly predictable, although even more effort to drive up the graduate school turnout rate would be a great thing. In short, we should all take pride in the fact that, by and large, student self-governance is prioritized by enough people to have meaningful elections. This is nothing to take for granted. We just also must understand the nature of any student election and search for ways of improvement that account for these inherent limitations.

False positives

Save for the numerous fliers littered around Grounds and the colorful invasion of our sidewalks, student election week was no different than any other at the University for the average student. According to the University Board of Elections, overall voter turnout this year was 38%, the second-highest rate since the recordkeeping began in 2004. This may be an encouraging sign for those who champion student self-governance and civic involvement at the University, but unfortunately for them, honor is another highly esteemed tradition at Virginia’s flagship university; this year’s spike in voter turnout was due to a controversial honor referendum instead of an increased enthusiasm for student government.
If the voter turnout data were placed on a graph, this year’s value would be considered an outlier. The highest rate was in 2004, when the UBE began tracking voting behavior. Turnout dropped all the way to 22% last year, only to increase more than 50% this year. A boost of that magnitude can only be attributed to a major influence on a student’s desire to vote. Obviously, voting has been encouraged, but no major campaigns were implemented within the last year with the goal of improving voter turnout. In fact, the only significant difference that I know of between this year and last was the touchy honor proposal to eliminate the single sanction. Since such a large percentage of students (70%) voted against this referendum, it is possible that many students decided to vote this year with the sole intention of knocking down the new honor proposal. Some point to the improvement among first-years, but this jump in turnout is not unique to our University’s youngest members. UBE statistics show that the turnout rates among first-, second-, and third-year students were all within ten percent of each other. The number of fourth-years that vote will always be lower since very few of their classmates are on the ballot. Those about to graduate are probably more concerned with finding a job than who the next Student Council representative from their college will be.
However, the traditionally low turnout rate is not a reflection of student self-governance at the University. Student leadership councils are important, and all efforts should be made to encourage people to get involved with these organizations, even if that involvement is something as little as volunteering to campaign. But the hundreds of other student organizations at the school, many of which support themselves financially, are the purest form of self-governance. The campaign volunteers in November are the ones that are truly civically involved. The volunteers who bother students all day for the sake of charity are the real public servants. Students at the University can contribute to self-governance with much more than just a vote.

Giving credit where it's due

While this year’s voter turnout was higher than in past years, the credit for this should go to the candidates and those supporting and opposing the referenda, instead of any special status organization. The countless man-hours spent chalking and talking, plus the dollars expended for fliers, advertisements, and other paraphernalia likely had much more of an effect than anything Student Council, the University Judiciary Committee, or the Honor Committee did this year. And while it almost goes without saying, it is worth adding the University Board of Elections to the group of organization that did little to nothing to raise turnout this year.
How, then, were students motivated to vote? The most likely explanation for voter turnout is a combination of identification with and excitement for a candidate or referendum. Looking at the turnout statistics by school, it is clear that the schools which field the most candidates in the election have the highest voter turnout. This is also an obvious explanation for why the fourth-year voting rate is always lower than that of other years. With no, or very few, fourth-year candidates on the ballot, graduating students likely know fewer candidates than those students in other classes. This theory of identification and social connection driving voter turnout breaks down when we see that first-year students vote at a higher percentage than second-year students, even though the second-year class likely contains more candidates than the first-year class.
There is a secondary theory, though, that can add to this understanding and redeem the model. As students get more excited about a candidate or referendum, they are more likely to vote. Since first-year students are highly concentrated on Grounds and therefore exposed to many more campaign messages, it makes sense that they would vote more. This goes practically without saying, but it is an important point that is frequently overlooked. A student is more likely to vote if he sees a flier for a candidate which mentions some issue he cares about. Reading an ad in The Cavalier Daily which mentions some positive or negative effect of a proposed referendum serves the same function, exciting students to vote either for or against that measure. Unfortunately, the same groups (the Cavalier Daily Opinion page included) which criticize students for failing to vote also ridicule candidates and groups which “annoy” students with their campaigning. We too often forget that chalking, handbills, and fliers are merely media used to energize supporters and apathetic students, thereby increasing voter turnout, which we all recognize as a noble goal.
If we want to see a continuation of the turnout increase, we should take two lessons from these theories, as rudimentary as they may seem. First, more candidates should be encouraged to run, for every position, from every school and year. Second, students should be encouraged and lauded for campaigning. Being asked to fulfill your civic duty should not be seen as a distraction, but instead as a reminder of the blessings of our system of democratic self-governance.

Topic of the Week: Voter turnout in spring elections

Alisa Abbott announces the results of the honor single sanction reform amendment. Photo by Julia Slater.
Today, the University Board of Elections released the results of last week's University-wide elections. Voter turnout was the highest in four years, with a turnout for the College of 48% and a total voter turnout (excluding the School of Continuing and Professional Studies) of 38%. Compared to last year's dismal turnout of 22%, this would seem to herald a renewal of student self-governance.
Yet there was a contentious referendum on the ballot this year: the single sanction reform amendment. Of the nearly 8,000 students that voted, 70% of those students said "no" to that particular referendum. Only 2% of voters did not cast a vote on the single sanction reform amendment. Maybe the only reason voter turnout was so high was this one referendum. What does that say about the state of student self-governance at the Univeristy? Do we show up for the important stuff, or is student self-governance taken seriously all the time? Certainly there have been efforts to improve voter turnout after the poor showing last year. First-year student turnout was 59%, up from 41% last year. Fourth-year student turnout was only 37%, much lower than the other three classes. Maybe incoming students are more engaged in student self-governance than past students have been.
So the question is: Is increased voter turnout due to the controversial referendum or are students taking more ownership of the system of student-self governrnace at the University?

Dazed and Confused: Kaine's plea for stimulus aid package overused

With the economic current of the times, it's not surprising that Virginia is struggling to present a comprehensible, balanced budget. In some ways it makes sense that they would want to wait for government aid. Yet every state is suffering from the same money maignancy, and every American industry (including the porn industry!) is lining up for government handouts. It is irresponsible and inexcusable of Gov. Kaine to do the same. His complete and total reliance on money that is only imaginary for the moment could prove devastating to an already tenuous budgetary crisis. Even before Kaine spoke of his expectations for a "significant sum" of money from Obama's stimulus package, Virginia's budget was experiencing severe setbacks. State legislators from both parties were concerned with Kaine's proposed budget, remarking that he had failed to graps the dire economic consequences of the financial crisis. They complained that even if they adopted all of his proposed cuts, the budget would still be unbalanced by a 1 billion dollar margin. As a result, the state had no choice but to begin to eliminate thousands of jobs, slash agency spending by 15 percent and to "trim" almost 1 billion dollars from K-12 education and Medicaid. Many were outraged over the cuts from these latter organizations, which need more, not less, monetary support.
Even with these cuts, Kaine is still struggling to find ways to balance the budget, including a proposed and subsequently killed plan to restore the 30 cent cigarette tax. The danger now lies in Kaine's expectation of stimulus money that may or may not arrive. There are simply too many uncontrollable variables in the situation. What if the money promised is not enough to cover the budgetary lapses? What is the Virginia stimulus aid package decision is delayed or arrives later than expected? What if there is no Virginia stimulus aid package?
The House Majority Leader, Del. H. Morgan Griffith, R-Salem, was disgruntled with the Senate's decision to wait until Wednesday before adopting a new version of the budget. In a Richmond Times-Dispatch article, he said that, "They didn't want to do their job." Griffith also commented that it may be May or June when they receive all the details from the stimulus package. The Senate views itself as stalling only or a few days to achieve accurate numbers. However, we can't afford to stall right now - the budget needs to be completed, with or without government aid.

Kaine't do it

I have to agree with Ross. The fact that a stimulus package from Washington is expected is no excuse to leave a gaping hole in the budget. In fact, the previously mentioned Richmond Times-Dispatch article estimates that the deficit in the state’s two year budget is $3.7 billion, a much larger hole than the revenue from the stimulus can boost us out of. Governor Kaine’s lack of concern is a distraction that does absolutely nothing to solve the problem at hand. Rather than using stimulus money to make up for budget shortfalls, the Virginia state legislature should take advantage of the opportunity to undertake worthwhile investments.
One problem with the state government’s failure to balance the budget is that it makes it difficult to justify the cuts the state has already made. For example, how can the state take millions away from University funds in the name of necessary budget cuts when its lowered revenues have not been offset? Even with the national stimulus package, some government programs will have to be nixed; yet others will persist. Normally, financial obligations would serve as an understandable rationalization, but the Old Dominion’s absence of budget management creates an unfair standard.
According to an article in the Virginian-Pilot on February 17th, the expected stimulus relief “will pay for about $800 million in state Medicaid obligations and provide about $200 million for use as lawmakers see fit.” The cash influx from Washington will do little to help the average Virginian economically. Instead, the majority of the money will just go to expanding entitlement programs that are eating up the state’s funds. Soon after the stimulus cash is gone, the state will have the same old financial obligations, and those who received money before will be expecting their checks.
The majority of the stimulus money given to states comes with restrictions and has many intentions, one of which is to create jobs. The federal government’s cash distribution will fail unless states contribute their discretionary grants to further national objectives. Not that the categorical grants have been designated wisely (the Virginian-Pilot article reports that $38 million of the state’s stimulus money must be used to subsidize day care), but it’s better than nothing. Using this opportunity to pay off budget shortfalls rather than invest in jobs and infrastructure will do next to nothing for Virginians. It will only delay the day when the real cuts have to be made. That money from Washington did not appear out of thin air. The Virginia government just swiped the credit card and sent the bill to future taxpayers like you and me.

Spending wisely

There's no question we're in the midst of a major bust cycle in the economy. With hard times come hard truths: the money supply isn't infinite, and sacrifices must be made across the board. This principle should apply just as much to government as it does to private businesses and citizens. While the Obama stimulus plan will afford Virginia additional revenue, this should be used to help close the already outstanding $3.2 billion hole in the state's two-year budget. Recessions should serve as stark reminders that we need to be frugal, not as opportunities to excuse growing deficits.
Compiling debt is a bigger problem at the federal level than it is at the state, largely due just to the sheer scale of government at that level (and thus proliferating deficits that are largely financed by foreign governments). Nevertheless, balanced budgets are important for anyone, and for good reason. A budget shortfall is nothing more than deferred taxation. This might not sound too daunting, but it has a certain significance. Carrying debt requires the payment of interest, which naturally compounds over time and grows more burdensome with increasing deficits. Interest expense is the Fed's third largest expenditure in the federal budget.
From a legal standpoint, Kaine's decision is also dubious. Currently forty-three states require their governor to submit balanced budgets to the legislature. While federal money will implicitly resolve the present shortfall, it is not a good faith effort by our state to rely solely on this money to cover the difference. This holds especially true in light of the $3 billion-plus still outstanding from the current budget. Revenue is harder to come by these days, but this is only reason to examine our spending habits more closely.
I recognize the excruciating difficulty that goes into making cuts. Salaries are reduced or held steady, people lose jobs, and programs are suspended. All of these are terrible consequences and everyone's heart goes out to those who face a tough road ahead. The problem is this: if we don't impose disciplined spending now, we all will pay for it down the line. More jobs and economic growth will be sacrificed in the long-run, leaving everyone worse off. The market mechanism underscores a reality that our government must accept. Everything has a cost, and deferring payment includes its own price as well. Doing this with the mentality that recessions justify ignoring underlying economic realities will only compound our problems. Who can afford that?

Topic of the Week: State bailouts

Q.E.D. is starting something new: a topic of the week that our opinion editors post their thoughts on and readers can respond to, both with our new poll and with blog comments.

This week, the topic is the failure of the Virginia General Assembly to produce a balanced budget, which Gov. Tim Kaine (D) has brushed off due to the passage of the economic stimulus package. In an article in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, Kaine is quoted as saying, "What that means near-term is we don’t have to make any more cuts."

States are required by law to balance their budgets. The Richmond Times-Dispatch is reporting that the state budget is at least 3.2 billion dollars short. Is a federal bailout a legitimate way to balance a state budget? The federal budget is obviously allowed to carry a deficit and that is currently not going very well.

Along with all of the other kinds of debt the stimulus package incurs, should it take to carrying state debt as well? Is that a violation of the state constitution since no balanced budget has yet been produced? Or is federal help warranted in hard times to smooth things over for the states? These are some of the questions our opinion department will be tackling this week.

An assault on fairness

Public colleges unquestionably serve as symbols of opportunity for many young people. As a student of the University, I have come to greatly appreciate the role that affordable, high-quality education can play in people's lives. I am proud that my school strives to break down barriers to entry and offer this brand of hope to ambitious individuals the world over. By the same token, I am also thankful that the University has made fairness a fundamental priority throughout its existence. That commitment begins with the admissions process.

A recent article in The Cavalier Daily highlights the Guaranteed Admission Agreement, a budding program across Virginia public colleges that aims to give Virginia Community College System students a clear path to graduation at a four-year state institution. Sounds nice, and to some extent it is. In its current form, however, it is also grossly unfair and could represent a dangerous movement away from an evenhanded admissions process. Why? It's not because VCCS students don't deserve every opportunity possible to further their education and pursue a bachelor's degree. It's because at colleges as competitive as this University, or William and Mary, or Virginia Tech (schools that turn away literally thousands of qualified applicants annually), no one should be guaranteed acceptance solely based on a prior institutional affiliation. No one.

The program is not akin to affirmative action or similar proposals. Affirmative action is better structured in the sense that it 1) does not guarantee admission for any individual, and 2) enhances the greater student population's experience through increased diversity. The GAA, on the other hand, does not assure more socioeconomic diversity; in fact, it doesn't even prioritize it. Interested VCCS students simply must meet the minimum criteria of a 3.4 grade point average as well as certain class and enrollment requirements (depending on which major a student is interested in pursuing).

I don't mean to belittle the achievements of community college students who earn a 3.4 in their coursework. That is certainly an accomplishment in and of itself, and I solemnly believe those students would receive admissions offers from many fine schools upon requesting to transfer. That decision should be rendered on the content of their application, just as it is for any other student seeking to transfer in the Commonwealth.

Case in point: is it even remotely justifiable to say that a VCCS student with a 3.4 and no extracurricular involvement should be guaranteed acceptance over an involved student at JMU (or VCU, or William and Mary, or Va. Tech) with a 3.8 or above? (I've seen this happen personally, so please don't write it off as an improbable hypothetical). The answer is no. One can argue that the JMU student has the opportunity to complete his/her education without transferring, while community college kids need a four-year institution to conclude their studies. That answer is unsatisfying though. It should be well within any student's right to seek a transfer, and certainly someone should not be penalized for prior acceptance to and matriculation at a four-year college or university.

Of course, all reasonable people want VCCS students to have the opportunity to further their studies; the only conflict is over how such a program is designed. Ultimately, admission to an institution such as the University is a highly competitive process, and many bright, dedicated students will unfortunately fall short. Therefore, it is irresponsible to draw up arbitrary distinctions among applicants based on institutional affiliations that make no attempt to account for a student's economic situation, intellectual capabilities, work ethic, co-curricular involvement, or even ethnic persuasion or extenuating circumstances. It hurts many students themselves, not to mention the University's commitment to equality on the whole.

This policy simply undermines the ideal that hard work and ambition are the only prerequisites to gain an evenhanded chance of admission to any public school in Virginia. And that, by all means, is a real shame.

Players on the pedestal

Plaxico Burress, Alex Rodriguez, Michael Phelps, Marion Jones, Michael Vick: the list goes on and on. It seems that every time sports news stories start to dry up, another high profile athlete gets him or herself into trouble. Some sports stars can get away with murder – Ray Lewis is one that comes to mind – and others are made examples of. Normally our society does not care if one single person is arrested, but because these wrongdoers are also role models to many of our children every twist and turn in their respective cases is followed by the public. Those athletes who have committed crimes are not to be exonerated of any blame, but the role given to them in our culture is a major cause of their behavior.
Athletes come in all shapes and sizes; it’s just the ones doing stupid things that we hear about on ESPN. Unfortunately, the fact that we are hearing about these stories on the news is a big reason why they happen. From being the high school star quarterback to the big man on campus to the multimillion-dollar crowd pleaser, high profile athletes are idolized the moment their talent is discovered. Colleges offer lax admissions standards and personal tutors to recruited “student-athletes.” (Too bad our men’s football and basketball teams haven’t returned on that investment.) The prima donna attitude we see in many sports starts is a result of them growing up with everything handed to them on a silver platter.
This phenomenon is not surprising in the least. Talented athletes are a hot commodity and contribute significantly to high schools, college environments, and professional sports teams. In an attempt to woo them, or maybe just out of pure admiration of their skills, sports stars bask in the limelight from a very young age. They are given a little slack in other areas as long as they get the job done on the field. If our society engages in this (I am certainly guilty myself) then we should not be horrified when our “role models” think they are invincible and have run-ins with the law.
Instead, we should emphasize other aspirations, especially education, with our youth. Children need to get involved with the arts and sciences at an earlier age; this will stimulate creativity and an academic curiosity as well as improve cultural appreciation and the advancement of our society. There is nothing wrong with dreaming of growing up to be an all star, but athletic talent is not worth shooting yourself in the thigh for.

Reproductive rights?

The birth of octuplets to Nadya Suleman, a woman who already has six children and lives with her mother, raises serious questions about government oversight of fertility treatments. Suleman has set up a website asking for donations and today CNN reported that she is accepting government assistance. Is it right at this point for the government to step in and say, 'you may not have any more children'? I think it would be right. It would also set a dangerous precedent for government oversight of reproduction. I say dangerous not because I believe any government oversight of reproductive rights is unacceptable, but because it has the potential for abuse.
In this situation, Suleman has shown herself unfit to raise children. Her eight new babies are still in the hospital, hooked up to monitors and machines to sustain their artificially created lives. And in these diffucult economic times, when so many are struggling and ned help, the government now has eight new children to look after. I see this as a compelling argument for the governemnt to begin issuing reproductive liscenses to allow people to have children. Requirements for such liscenses should not be very stringent, just proof of the ability to support offspring. Setting up such a system does establish a new level of oversight for the government, but government services are a collective good all taxpayers buy into. As a taxpayer, I would like there to be some barriers to prevent abuses of the system, such as an unemployed single mother with fourteen mouths for the government to feed.

There is such a thing as too much honor

Go on any admissions tour, and the honor code is sure to be mentioned by your University Guide. Honor is something held in high esteem here, and most if not all would agree that is a good thing. However, there is a line between respect and obsession, and given the upcoming Honor Committee elections and proposal to reform the single sanction policy, that line is starting to blur. The honor code is an important part of our University, but the abundant bickering that has been commonplace over the past week is far from what the code's founders intended to accomplish.
I will spare the details of the most recent honor arguments - if you have not tired of hearing the repetitive pleas for and against the single sanction, just check out some of the recent Cavalier Daily Opinion guest columns. With each new discussion the subject becomes more mundane, and the average student's interest is probably fading fast. The whole point of having an honor code is so there is no need to think about rules; just do the right thing. The vast majority of students will never have to go through an honor trial, and to them the honor code is about being able to abandon their laptops at the library for half an hour and not have it stolen. Any student charged with an offense has a chance to admit his or her guilt and avoid expulsion. Someone – obviously with prior knowledge of the punishment at hand – who has done wrong and fails to come clean should have to deal with any repercussions he has brought on himself. As for the innocent, it is hard to believe they will be convicted on a lack of evidence.
Yes, by writing this post I am contributing to the problem. But I hope after reading this you will not think about the word “honor” again this week unless you are pledging an assignment. The Honor Committee is important, but its debates do not need to dominate University discussions the way they have. Don't we have real papers to write, articles to read, and tests to study for?