FEARFUL SCENARIOS FOR THE 2012 XU CAMPUS ELECTIONS

Election Days of the Xavier University Student body for the next school year have arrived. A quick review of the list of candidates leaves one with little choice especially in the positions for the Central Student Government. Considering this situation, we cannot blame some students who are voicing out their discontent over the seeming “absence of a choice”. Calls for selecting “none” has been circulating around social media and has posed as a fearful scenario which the ELECOM and the CSG are mobilizing to avert.

In the legal sense, voting “none” per se does not create a failure of elections.

Article 1, Section 5, paragraph B of the 2011 Omnibus Election Code of the XU-CSG provides:

If in the case where the population of those who voted is less than twenty-five percent (25%) of the Xavier University student population as for the CSG President and Vice-President; and less than fifteen percent (15%) of the college student population for the Council Presidents. ELECOM shall then hold for a re-election for the particular position(s) declared failure on a date close to the declaration of failure of elections but not later than thirty (30) days from the declaration of failure of elections.

First we must understand why a threshold is established. The reason behind establishing a threshold is to assure that the results of the elections possess a substantial mandate coming from the students. It compels the agencies tasked to facilitate the elections to mobilize and exert effort to encourage students to cast their votes. One may ask why not peg it to a majority since we abide by such rule of majority. The Directorate was cautions in anchoring the threshold to such level. Ideally it should be the case; however, the legislators know all too well the reality of apathy and the greater risk of repeated failure of election if the bar is set too high. Having this scenario might permanently damage the confidence and even the relevance of such exercise. So a safe and practical level is half of the majority. It is not too low as to devoid those elected with a clear mandate and not too high that it is well beyond the boundaries of our electoral reality.

Now let us look into the fear of failure of elections. The conditions for failure of elections only looks into the percentage of the total student body population who casted their votes whether for a candidate or for “none”. “None” is incorporated in the 25% because the law assumes that even though it is not for any particular candidate, it is still a product of discernment as oppose to those who does not even bother to proceed to the polling precinct to make official their choice of “none”. A failure of elections only occurs when these thresholds are not met as established by law. The only remedy provided for by law is to have another election not more than thirty days of such declaration of failure of elections. This would entail another round of expenses and extended work. This is practically the burden that the authorities are compelled to overthrow by bolstering all efforts and means to encourage the students to vote.  

However, attaining a 25% or 15% voting population saves the general elections but not necessarily certain lone candidates.

Section 3, Article 2 provides:

 Re-election for the CSG President, CSG Vice-President, and Directorate. If in the case the lone candidate running for a certain position failed to attain more than 50% of the population of those who voted, a re-election will be done. The candidate who failed to achieve the quota is unqualified for the re-election. The next day after the last day of election, ELECOM will then immediately release COCs for new candidates who want to run for the position. ELECOM will then set re-election schedules but should not be later than thirty school days after the last day of election. Eligibility of the new set of candidates will still be followed as stated in Article X Section 2 of the 2006 XU-CSG Constitution.

Hence, if 50% voted for none in a lone contest for the positions of CSG President, VP or College President, then he is miserably barred from running for re-election for that purpose. The candidate has to get a simple majority for him to win the position. This then should compel the unopposed candidates through their party or supporters to not only settle for a single vote win but for a simple majority win.

We should remember that this exercise is not as simple as it may seem. We are able to do this because men ages ago spilled their blood for us to exercise this inherent right to think and decide our destiny as a community.