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.