Do Cornell students care more about electing their Minority Liaison At-Large than their Student Assembly (SA) President?
The SA election results reveal that the 3rd place candidate for Minority Liaison At-Large Samari Gilbert, ’17, received slightly more votes than Presidential runner-up Matthew Stefanko, ’16 (1,475 votes to his 1,461). Only one of the two candidates, however, received a position in the incoming SA – Stefanko.
Under SA election rules, Presidential and Executive Vice-Presidential candidates are automatically entered into the Undesignated At-Large Representative race. Students can thus hedge their vote by selecting a favorite candidate in a primary and back-up race.
Stefanko received the largest number of votes for the Undesignated At-Large position (926, 20.21% of the voting population), but failed to gain as many votes as Gilbert received in her race.
Certainly, Gilbert faced fewer competitors for the Minority At-Large position than Stefanko faced for Undesignated At-Large (2 to his 8), an important factor considering that students can cast multiple votes for all of the races. Yet, when Gilbert and Stefanko faced equal numbers of competitors, Gilbert fared better.
Therefore, one has to ponder how automatically entering Gilbert into the Undesignated At-Large election would have affected the results.
Gilbert told The Review that she believes that events such as the ALANA forum caused the great interest in the Minority At-Large election.
“The people who were in attendance and the communities that they represent seemed a lot more invested in the electoral process, and the Minority Rep position specifically, because they heard our opinions and platforms as they related to their own lives,” Gilbert stated.
Gilbert’s statement proposes a viable solution for increasing turnout: organize more intimate, low-rhetoric events and show students that the SA is relevant to their Cornell experience.
Although I initially expressed skepticism about the “pop quizzes” and, at times, high-pressure environment of the ALANA candidate forum, the Minority Liaison At-Large election received considerable attention. Perhaps the SA candidate forum should follow suit and ask the candidates difficult, pointed questions.
Maria Chak, ’18, won one of the two Minority Liaison At-Large positions with 1,597 votes. Chak also emphasized the ability of the Minority At-Large Liaison to directly address minority students’ needs and concerns.
Reflecting on her campaign, Chak wrote, “In addition to seeking and gaining organizational endorsements, I strove to appeal to the students within these minority organizations, focusing on the individual needs and concerns rather than those of organizations alone.”
Interestingly, Chak experienced more difficulty at the ALANA candidate forum than did Gilbert and Minority Liaison-elect Saim Chaudhary, ’17. During a “pop quiz” section, an audience member asked the candidates to list the full names of the five multicultural umbrella organizations.
While Chaudhary (the ALANA treasurer) named all five organizations and Gilbert named four, Chak struggled and did not correctly write out the full name of a single organization. Chak failed to secure the ALANA endorsement, which instead went to Chaudhary and Gilbert.
Yet, Chak overcame the mishap and successfully won a seat without the ALANA endorsement.
Should minority students alone be allowed to vote for minority liaison?
In her statement to The Review, Gilbert expressed the above sentiment. Gilbert noted the apparent ineffectiveness of the ALANA nomination in past years, stating, “this is the second year in a row that the candidate they endorsed for Minority Rep has lost the election. It may be time for the SA to take the position more seriously, and to me that means only allowing the people that the Minority Liaison at Large represents to vote for the position.”
Last year, only two of the candidates that ALANA endorsed won their elections (Shivang Tayal for International Liaison At-Large and Yamini Bhandari for Women’s Issues Liaison At-Large) according to a post on their Facebook page.
The idea of limiting voting for the Minority Liaison to minority students is interesting enough to warrant SA and on-campus debate.
Yet, an even more provocative and important question exists:
Should Samari Gilbert be the next Undesignated At-Large Representative?
Of course, the election has already occurred and the students elected Stefanko, Maha Ghandour, ’17, Gabe Kaufman, ’18, and Diana Li, ’18. Yet, should the Elections Committee re-evaluate which candidates earn an automatic spot on the Undesignated Representative At-Large ballot, given past years’ vote tallies?
The decision to place presidential and executive vice-presidential candidates partially results from the assumption that the unsuccessful candidates will still receive a large number of votes However, this year’s vast differences between the number of votes received by presidential and executive vice-presidential candidates versus Minority Liaison candidates blatantly contradict the expectation.
True, Gilbert only received the support of .31% more of the voting population than Stefanko, but compare Gilbert’s results to unsuccessful executive vice-president candidate Peter Biedenweg’s, ’16 (706 votes) or unsuccessful presidential candidate Jeffrey Breuer’s, ’15 (335 votes). Gilbert received votes from 16.79% more of the voting population than Biedenweg, and 24.55% – nearly a pure quarter – more than Breuer.
Does it make sense that Stefanko, Biedenweg and Breuer received the opportunity to also run for Undesignated At-Large Representative and Gilbert did not?
The SA Elections Committee correctly decides to alter or affirm the rules while ignorant of who will run and how successful their campaign will be. As such, it’s difficult to confidently recommend a change in election protocol.
Still, students should critically evaluate representatives’ actions in the coming year and ask themselves if they are satisfied with the choices of Undesignated At-Large Representatives they faced.
The comparison between the vote totals in the Presidential race and the Minority at-Large race isn’t valid since voters can select two candidates for the Minority at-Large seat (essentially doubling the turnout in that race over the number of unique voters).
Thank you for your comment, I think that we could still benefit by analyzing and reevaluating our election structure. I understand the logic that voters in the minority liaison race essentially had two 1st-place votes to give whereas the voters in the presidential election only had one. However, that doesn’t change the fact that more people checked a box next to Gilbert’s name than did next to Stefanko’s, and Gilbert didn’t have the benefit of having votes redistributed after the first round like Stefanko did.