Turning IUSA into a PLUS

The field is wide open for PLUS for IUSA, the only ticket still running for the executive office of the IU Student Association.

There are those who argue the de facto inheritance of IUSA administrations represents a strong knowledge of the system and a willingness to serve the student body on the part of the executive ticket. But when the student body is given no alternative, that argument rings hollow.

Others say the fact no other tickets choose to form to contend for the office means those we have must be doing a good job. If no one wants to stand against them, they must deserve the office.

That argument would be more understandable, even convincing, if these tickets weren’t the architects and beneficiaries of the process governing their own selection.

We all admit knowledge of processes and contacts within the system is one of the key elements for success. It’s why consulting is a profession. It’s why most of us have LinkedIn accounts.

When you have the information on the inside, and you know the people who control the channels of that information, it’s much easier to get what you want. A ticket formed from within the current administration is obviously privy to all the information one could want about how to form an effective ticket long before that information is available to the public.

This isn’t some abstract idea either, it produces real problems. UNIFY IU, the ticket that originally opposed PLUS, dropped out largely because it felt it had no chance against PLUS — a ticket that had the resources and knowledge to begin planning for this election a year ago.

This isn’t necessarily a reason to reject the hand-picked successors of our current administration every year, but it certainly isn’t a reason to elect them. Whether you’re a freshman, sophomore, junior or senior, your executive student government has essentially been in the hands of the same group of people throughout the entire time you’ve attended this University.

The office of student body president went to Michael Coleman in 2010, then Justin Kingsolver in 2011 and Kyle Straub in 2012, finally passing to Jose Mitjavila in 2013.

Should PLUS for IUSA succeed in its campaign, it will be the fifth consecutive administration formed largely from the ranks of its predecessors.

Election reform is necessary to level the playing field.

First, the Graduate and Professional Student Association, the representative body for graduate students, requires candidates running unopposed for its executive council to gain a significant portion of support from the student population before being declared the winner. A similar policy is necessary for IUSA.

Second, the current voting structure, where students vote electronically — many of them at open-air voting stations around campus staffed by volunteers from the competing tickets — amounts to an open ballot. IUSA should take steps to reform this process and ensure a true, secret ballot for its constituents.

Finally, the current system of overseeing elections provides too many systematic advantages to members of the incumbent administration. The election commission should be entirely separated from the executive administration and placed directly under the control of the IU Supreme Court.

IUSC justices, although appointed by the president of IUSA, serve terms three times as long. The court is comprised of 11 individuals as opposed to one. They would hopefully be more equitable in distributing information about elections and implementing other reforms.

PLUS for IUSA has a duty to incorporate all of these reforms into its platform because it will better serve the student body. If PLUS for IUSA really is the best choice for students, it should have nothing to fear from a more open, equitable and competitive election process.

drlreed@indiana.edu
@D_L_Reed