House Editorial: Time has come for SGA election overhaul Posted on April 3, 2006

As the brilliant 20th-century philosopher Yogi Berra quipped, “it’s déjà vu all over again.”

In a noble quest to achieve the electoral notoriety of the great state of Florida, the SGA has been unable to successfully conduct an election without some kind of redo since 2003. And after last year’s electoral fiasco, complete with accusations of campaign fraud, bitter rhetoric and a do-over election between the two leading candidates (similarities notwithstanding, the SGA maintains it did not constitute a run-off), many were convinced that the obvious flaws in the voting process would mandate a thorough makeover.

But this time around, the SGA has outdone itself, prompting a run-off election in every single contested election. In every contest not conducted like Iraqi elections three years ago — you can vote for Saddam or you can vote for Saddam — there was no clear winner.

While having a run-off policy is — and has proved to be — of indispensable value, such contingency plans are ideally designed to be safeguards, not standard operating procedures. Yet it does not take much effort to see that the contingency plan has become business as usual, providing an excellent real-world application of the word “snafu.” No class currently attending JMU has seen an SGA election conducted in any way approximating “smoothly.”

Undeniably, it is high time for a change. Unlike national elections, we at JMU are relatively immune from the two-party system in our campus voting. In an almost exclusive two-party system, 51 percent is inherently required for victory, and works relatively well. Ralph Nader demonstrated the fiasco that can take place when a third party is introduced into such an environment. Yet SGA elections are free of such a polarized, institutionalized party system; anyone whose daddy can bankroll glossy posters, T-shirts and mints can run. It is the beauty of an open democracy.

As a result, it is remarkably misguided to believe that, in a three-way election, any candidate will garner more than 50  percent of the vote, nor is a 50 percent-or-better showing necessary to have a clear winner. It does not take a brain surgeon, rocket scientist or even Yogi Berra to figure out that a simple, straightforward “most votes wins” election would be far better suited to the SGA. Four years of run-offs and redos is enough. Whoever ends up the victor the second time around needs to make election reform priority one when the SGA reconvenes next year.