When the announcement of the candidates for the Trinity College Dublin Students’ Union (TCDSU) elections was made on January 20th, my friend, who is away on Erasmus, immediately sent me the link to a relevant article. Specifically, she was curious as to what people were saying about the very high number of uncontested races this election period. With a shocking four out of the six TCDSU races going uncontested, was there less hype around the races? Will these uncontested races mean student disengagement when it comes to voting?
With campaigning underway for the TCDSU elections, it is important that we consider these questions. The uncontested positions this year are: Editor of The University Times, Education Officer, Communications & Marketing Officer and Entertainments Officer. An uncontested race is more unusual for some of these positions and less so for others. Indeed, on the day the candidates were announced, an article produced by The University Times discussed the trends in recent TCDSU elections. For example, the position of Editor of The University Times, since its split from the position of Communications & Marketing Officer in 2015, has always been uncontested. The race for the position of Education Officer is normally entered by only one person. These can perhaps be easily explained: the position of The University Times editor is unlikely to attract someone outside of student media, making the pool of potential candidates quite small, while the position of education officer is considerably more niche than the other union roles, attracting people who have a knowledge of the inner workings and structures of the union and the College. In contrast, the position of Communications & Marketing Officer has seen two candidates in its race since the split: an uncontested race is not the norm. Even the position of Entertainments Officer, usually one of the most contested and, funnily enough, entertaining races, is, this year, a one-man race.
People may question whether this works to delegitimize the value of the positions, or the union’s work itself. If there is only one person who wishes to run for the role, can it really be that essential to our college lives? This is a legitimate query, but one that must be approached with caution, as there are many other factors that may explain the rise of uncontested positions.
When you type “uncontested elections” into Google, one of the first results is about their dangers: namely, that people will become disengaged with the vote, or displeased with the lack of variety in representation of the position. This is dangerous because if people feel that their vote will make little difference in a race, and do not vote, then democracy is not really being exercised. Instead, a person who feels they are best suited for the role may find themselves in it without ultimately needing a large amount of support. Indeed, the shorter campaigning period combined with the reduced number of candidates is unlikely to do anything good for voter turnout. One way to combat these uncontested elections is to make the nominations process simpler. Yet, I think that there are other, more pressing factors at work that dissuade people from entering a TCDSU election race.
For example, there is an element of the “scare factor”. This can be roughly defined as people thinking of running but being intimidated by assuming that their fellow candidates have already garnered an overwhelming amount of support and that it isn’t worth their running because they’ve already lost. In this situation, it is often those with popularity on their side, those “big names”, that, often unintentionally, discourage others whose skillsets may be better suited to a position from running. This is a shame, primarily because much of the discussion that precedes the announcement of candidates is for the most part, rumours. It is difficult to decipher who will actually receive the most support over vote before the candidates are announced, yet, this factor of popularity is a large problem for student democracy, and one that is difficult to address. In contrast to being intimidated out of running for a position, there is also the aspect of the humble honours system. That is, and perhaps this is naïve, a candidate realizing that their opponent is the best match for the position and deciding not to run. In a way, this is a pre-emptive solution to dropping out of the race after entering: this year, we have seen less of this than in previous years as no candidate has dropped out prior to campaigns starting.
Running for a TCDSU position requires an extortionate amount of work, and although there are many benefits to the experience of the campaigning process, this alone could indicate why the roles attracted less competition this year. Not to mention the work in actually holding one of the sabbatical positions, I imagine. Despite the incredible opportunities they represent, potential candidates may want to consider whether the time, stress and responsibility will prove rewarding. This is something that each person must consider before running, and could certainly be a dissuasive factor. While this year’s election period has been reduced with this stress in mind, it’s possible that, with no one having seen the new structure in action, it wasn’t enough to soothe the fears of those on the edge.
Uncontested races can often indicate that something is amiss in the current election process, and perhaps in the positions themselves. They instinctively prompt questions of the value of the positions and student engagement in voting, as competition in elections is important. It is competition that often brings out the best policies and shaping of the best possible candidate for a position. We must question what the high number of uncontested races tells us about the positions we are voting on. While using the uncontested race as another argument against the value of college politics is unjust, it is difficult to deny the negative factors of uncontested races, the largest being less people turning out to vote because they may think their vote is not necessary. I hope this is not the case. While a student running in an uncontested race is automatically considered the default winner before campaigns even start, the week still offers the opportunity to critically engage, influence policy or even vote to reopen nominations, an option that never seems to be strongly exercised by the student body. Even in a race of one person, there can only be a winner with student support.
