It is striking how routine and ordinary the students’ union elections become over the course of the four years or so that most students will spend at Trinity. What feels like an aberrant whirlwind of luminous t-shirts, pre-lecture speeches and ballot papers in first year very quickly becomes the norm for that week or so in the doldrums of Hilary term. Long before graduating, a student becomes a connoisseur of the election campaign, appreciating a lingering manifesto pun or two and fondly remembering the mildly amusing scandals that mark some elections as more distinctive. The elections very quickly seem to become a matter of course, the natural, common sense, obvious way to do things.
But it is not entirely clear that they should be. That a students’ union needs dedicated, full-time sabbatical officers is probably beyond dispute, but that does not necessarily require that they be chosen by means of election. Election is one way of entrusting people with public functions and one with which we are relatively familiar, but it is certainly not the only way. It is one of a number of institutional choices and one that most likely carries disadvantages as well as benefits. Indeed, if that oft-repeated quote of Churchill’s is anything to go by, and representative democracy “is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”, competitive election can probably only aspire to be the best of imperfect alternatives.
One of the main ideas behind election, for example, is the aggregation of the electorate’s preferences. To achieve this, it allows the candidate whose policy proposals most accord with the desires of the electorate to hold office so that they might implement those policies. This is something, however, that they can only do imperfectly. Policies come in packages put together by candidates and it is unlikely that any one voter (with the dutiful campaign team, close friends and ardent fans being obvious exceptions) will wholeheartedly endorse every suggestion put forward by their chosen candidate. Peter Stone, Ussher Assistant Professor of Political Science at Trinity explains this problem, speaking to The University Times: “One of the big fears about an election is everyone reads into what they want to read into it.”
People are more likely to vote for someone whom they find to be charismatic and interesting, irrespective of their policy platform
An election can perhaps only ever aspire to imperfectly represent the views of the student body, and what seem like sweeping victories might actually be more ambiguous than might be apparent. “One of the more general concerns about an election is that people might have different reasons for voting for you”, Stone emphasises. Indeed, some of Stone’s research analyses this problem that has troubled political scientists for some time. Termed the Arrow Theorem, it suggests that a large group cannot behave rationally under a majority voting rule. Even if one were to hold a referendum on every possible decision, the student body as a whole would not have one set of consistent and coherently ordered preferences. The different factors that shape individual voter choices cannot be assessed, and thus no outcome can give the definite and concrete “mandate” that politicians often reference.
The imperfections that limit the ability of the process of election to effectively aggregate the will of the voters can also be caused by disengagement. An election outcome can only begin to approximate the will of the electorate when enough of that electorate actually decides to vote, assuming of course that voters have enough basic information about the issues central to the election to make a decision as to their preferred outcome. Therefore, the process of election depends very much on and demands a lot of voters. This can pose problems because of the lack of individual incentives to vote. Each individual voter is put in a position where their vote will have a minimal impact on the overall result, something which both disincentivizes spending time learning about the issues at play in the election and the act of voting itself.
Students’ union elections are likely to be different from general elections in two important respects, however. Firstly, the pool of voters is much smaller so each individual vote carries more weight, which we might expect to favour higher engagement. Secondly, the stakes in such elections are much lower than in general elections. Though undoubtedly sabbatical officers carry out important and meaningful work, their power and impact on even the average student’s life is obviously much lesser than that of the government, a difference that conflicts with engagement and participation. If voter turnout statistics can give any indication of the degree of voter engagement, it would appear that the effect of the latter is greater than the former. While turnout at the last general election in Ireland was around 65 per cent, last year’s TCDSU elections had a turnout of approximately 24 per cent, though in 2015 as many as 40 per cent of students voted.
In addition, personal voting may undermine the effectiveness of election. In any electoral contest, many will cast their vote for reasons external to policy or the matters for which the elected official will be responsible. The vast amounts of time and resources political candidates running for national offices around the world invest in their appearance, their phrasing, with whom they are seen – all facets of some nebulous concept of their “image” – simply cannot be explained without regard for the personal voting. People are more likely to vote for someone whom they find to be charismatic and interesting, irrespective of their policy platform. Ivana Bacik, Trinity Senator and Reid Professor of Criminal Law, Criminology and Penology argues, when speaking to The University Times, that this is a necessary cost of democracy: “People are always going to make up their minds for all sorts of reasons, it isn’t something that can be measured or reviewed.”
Maybe there is a problem in students’ union elections with them becoming a popularity contest, which is something you can screen out with lotteries
However, there may be reasons to think that students’ union elections could be based less on policy and more on personality than might be the case in other contests. There is a smaller pool of voters than in a national election, both in terms of the number of people entitled to vote and the proportion who actually exercise that right, a smaller pool within which personal connections and personally knowing a candidate are potentially more influential. In addition, recent discussion in political science has centred on the increasing personalisation of politics, with candidates’ personality traits mattering more and more, as fewer and fewer voters identify with institutionalised political parties. As students’ union candidates do not run on any platform of party, it is likely that the voters electing them will be more likely to turn to personal characteristics in making their decision compared to the party-driven competition of general elections.
However, these problems appear to be accommodated by stringent election rules. Kieran McNulty, President of TCDSU, in an email statement to The University Times, suggested that while there is a risk the elections will become popularity contests, “the changes we’ve made this year will, I believe, change this”. He identifies hustings as a key mechanism for ensuring policy-based contestation. “The hustings will ask questions on a wide range of topics, including detailed questions on manifestos, McNulty explains, “the rules also limit popular candidates regarding campaign spending and endorsements”.
Changes to election rules have also addressed another problem with the process of election. The toll campaigns take on candidates can be immense. In an email statement to The University Times, McNulty explained that “running for election on some level; will always be stressful”, emphasising that “what mitigation we can do, we will”. It appears that attempts to lessen the emotional strain on candidates come in many forms. “We’re making the election period shorter, with mandatory lunch breaks”, McNulty elaborates. “The Welfare Officer and [Student Counselling Service] are on hand for candidates and campaigners throughout, and a shorter period, peer supporters on hand, and mandatory lunch breaks will also help.” This shorter, week-long campaigning period with mandatory lunch breaks and a stricter “three strike” system of fines for breaching electoral rules was introduced following a discussion at TCDSU Council in December. There is, however, a positive side to the intensity of campaigning. Bacik argues that “it’s a great process that engages a large number of the student population”, stressing that “participation is a benefit in itself”. McNulty stresses another positive to election: “students in many cases have a great time campaigning”.
While identifying problems with the process of election is relatively simple, it is much more of a challenge to propose an alternative. One of the most frequently cited alternatives is election by lot, or sortition. This involves choosing people to fill offices by random selection. To anyone raised in a liberal electoral democracy, the procedure sounds almost as absurd as dictatorship. However, the mechanism has the most auspicious of democratic credentials. It was used by the people of ancient Athens to fill almost all of their political offices and was an integral part of what is widely regarded as the world’s first democracy. Nor is the mechanism completely absent in modern Western societies. After all, juries enjoy considerable power to make life-changing decisions but are essentially selected randomly from the adult population. Stone explains to The University Times the benefits of election by lot. “It allows you to remove sinister influences or domination by specific interests.” This perhaps matters less in the context of the students’ union elections, where specific interests have few incentives to dominate policy-making and campaign budgets are minimal and strictly controlled. “Maybe there is a problem in students’ union elections with them becoming a popularity contest, which is something you can screen out with lotteries.” Other benefits of election by lot include ensuring that those selected are representative of the population, something which might prevent the frequent emergence of a ballot paper populated almost exclusively by men.
However, there is definitely a sense in which this process is absurd. Anyone could be selected. Anyone. And it’s doubtful that sabbatical offices are jobs we would entrust to anyone. “The general concern with election by lot is having a pool of people that you’re willing to delegate to”, Stone explains, “but certain measures, like electing a committee of people rather than a single official, as did the ancient Athenians, would probably guard against dangers of the lottery”. Stone also stresses that “in any kind of reform involving election by lot, every element counts”. He suggests that there are many options for systemic change that combine lotteries and elections. For example, there could be approval voting, where every voter selects any candidate that they find acceptable and the winner will be chosen at random from the top few candidates. There could also be an enfranchisement lottery, where a random selection from each of the faculties would be given the vote and candidates would address their campaigns just to these few. This method might help to combat the rational ignorance of voters, by making each voter’s choice carry a lot more weight. Combining the seemingly irreconcilable process of election and sortition might actually see each improve the other.
Much of modern thinking on politics is about government only by the consent of the governed. But what about all the people who didn’t vote for you?
The demerits of election are not insurmountable, but nor are they the full picture. The benefits of election may be well rehearsed but they are nevertheless persuasive. The competition between multiple candidates necessarily pushes candidates to be the best they can possibly be. Beyond that, one of its most important tasks is legitimation. Sabbatical officers represent students and speak publicly on their behalf. Their ability to do so is based on the perception that they know and understand student interests, a perception that is supported by the understanding that they were selected by the student body themselves, in a process where the majority of participants approved of them. In addition to justifying their position to those outside the university, election is part of what legitimates the role of the sabbatical officer. While the life of a sabbatical officer is a challenging one, they live, to a certain extent, at the expense of the student body, enjoying a salary and on-campus accommodation, which is not something to which many students have access during their time in university. The student body’s conferral of such benefits on sabbatical officers seems somewhat absurd without some input from students.
Legitimacy is also important to justify the union’s decisions on issues that divide students. This feature of democratic elections is perhaps more relevant than ever in light of recent debates on withdrawal from unions, particularly over the stance of TCDSU and other unions on certain issues such as the eighth amendment. If holding the esteem of students is important to a students’ union, then election does have a role to play. As Stone notes “elections are a means of expression, people simply like to be heard, even if it doesn’t have any effect on the outcome”. Whatever the benefits of random selection, one can only imagine that it might foster a sense that the activities of the students’ union are very much beyond student control. However, Stone also observes that there are limits to the ability of electoral democracy to provide legitimacy. “Much of modern thinking on politics is about government only by the consent of the governed”, he explains to The University Times, “but what about all the people who didn’t vote for you?”
Indeed, it is important to highlight the comparative advantage of election compared to selection by lot, its most persuasive competition. “Elections are good for finding very motivated, enthusiastic people”, explains Stone, “they’re about finding someone with some kind of distinction or particular ability, allowing you to distinguish people”. Particular skills can often be discerned through election and Stone explains that this is why “the ancient Athenians, who were very much attached to random selection, used to elect generals, but few other offices apart from that”. Not everyone knows how to get the best advertising deals for TCDSU, and not everyone knows how to run a newspaper, so ensuring the right people get the job is very important. However, this benefit may be less significant this year, where most races are uncontested. There may remain however, some advantages to the electoral process, as Stone notes: “Election is particularly appropriate where you’re relying on volunteers and you need them to be dedicated.”
If election is a process worth keeping and more importantly, if it is to be used to its full potential, it cannot be held up as a foregone conclusion
What emerges in all of this is that in order to decide on the best way of filling a particular office, you have to be aware not only of the advantages and disadvantages of each possible selection mechanism, but also how those advantages and disadvantages interact with the specific features of the offices in question. Students’ union elections might not need exactly the same system as general elections because the differences between the TCDSU President and a TD are obviously vast. Different election rules can go some way towards tailoring the process to specific circumstances and the challenges they pose. This might be a suitable juncture to consider whether or not all sabbatical officers ought to be selected in the same way. The work done by each office is very different perhaps most notably that of the Editor of this paper. Indeed, in an email statement to The University Times, McNulty argues for change in this regard. “I wouldn’t agree, after giving it a chance for three years, that The University Times editor should be elected. UT has made it quite clear that the editor is not a sabbatical officer, and indeed, they do not represent students. In addition, the Deputy Editor has always gone on to run for editor uncontested.” By way of alternative, McNulty suggests positions himself “in favour of this being elected by a panel”.
If election is a process worth keeping and more importantly, if it is to be used to its full potential, it cannot be held up as a foregone conclusion. There is probably not an easy answer to any choice of institutions or means of political representation. Waving a flag and inanely crying “Democracy!” is just not enough of a well thought-out answer to difficult questions like these. We have to be clear about what election does well, and about what kind of problems it can cause.
