The Facts:
A Senate proposal suggests the idea of increasing the election-voting period. Two-day elections from 2005 to 2007 did not result in a notably higher voter turnout.
Our Opinion:
The economic costs associated with additional days of student voting are minimal. If there is any chance an addition would increase voter turnout in campus elections, it should be put in place.
Student Government elections, since 2007, and fee referendums (in the three years they’ve been presented) have a 24-hour voting period.
There are several justifications for limiting the amount of time students have to vote, but many students think the time is inadequate and should be expanded.
A recent Student Senate proposal presented the idea of expanding Student Government voting periods to 96 hours.
The idea, despite the trivial results two-day voting produced when used in 2005 through 2007, has merit and gives students additional time to cast their votes. If the goal of the elections is to represent as many students as possible, extending voting hours makes sense.
One of the downsides of extending voting hours is the prospect that students’ campaign costs could increase. Students running for election spend a great deal of money on voting day trying to get students out to the polls.
But additional days do not mean the campaign spending limits need to be revised. If anything, additional intense campaigning would force candidates to carefully manage their expenditures and stretch their spending over multiple days. Additional days won’t necessarily mean an increase in spending.
From a students’ perspective, the costs of extra voting days are inconsequential. Voting is done on the Web and any extra time would result in minor additional expenditure from Student Government.
If even a few extra votes were cast, the added cost would be worth it. The funding would have gone toward facilitating the democratic process on campus — isn’t this one of the things Student Government is all about?
Another criticism levied against extra days is that the voter turnout is not significantly higher. In 2005 through 2007, when voting was two days, turnout was about the same as single-day voting in other years. In fact, the election with the most votes ever was a single-day election in 2008.
The criticism might be fair, but still ignores the fact that any potential increase in voter turnout should be relished and sought after. Even an additional 500 votes cast could alter the results of a race.
The costs are too low in this case not to add at least one additional day. And perhaps, if the system is given more than a few years to take hold, elections will see a significant increase in voting after the first day. It’s worth finding out.