Appointments should replace elections

October 8, 2007 —

Who's that?

Yeah, we don't know either. It's one of the weaknesses of procedural democracy: elections like the homecoming king and queen contest are simply popularity contests. Whoever can convince enough of their friends to hit the voting booth usually wins, and to be fair, that's perfectly legitimate. But when the popularity contest ends, so should the voting.

Deciding the homecoming king and queen through popular mandate works because the only qualification a homecoming king or queen needs to possess is a large network of friends to vote, and that's fine. Being homecoming royalty is a test of character, not of professionalism. And that's the way it should be. It's just a fun competition.

However, the voting doesn't stop at the homecoming contests, and it should. We elect people into positions like president of the Student Association and president of Program Board, regardless of experience or qualifications. Needless to say, these positions are a bit more demanding than being a homecoming king, and the way these people assume their jobs should be a bit more selective of a process than simply a vote.

While Program Board and SA are the most relevant examples, the problems with voting are universal. If voter turnout is low, then a popular mandate is questionable. If ideologically-inclined voting blocks turn out in spades only for certain issues, the politics of the vote may be misrepresentative of what's actually affecting voters the most (this is often the case at the state and federal levels of government).

The positions of SA president and Program Board president should be decided through a competitive appointment process, and not through elections. The electoral process does not necessarily deliver organizations in need of good leadership. The miracle of elections is that we often do get fine leadership out of them, but there are also the occasional hiccups, for example, Nixon.

This should not read as an indictment of either organization's current leaders, whom we have had the pleasure to work with on numerous occasions and are both quality presidents. Rather, it should worry the student body that the process by which these people were selected is open to literally anyone, and if a candidate that has a less than savory plan for either organization wants to run, all he or she has to do is get voted in. Simple as that.

There are some natural safeguards in the voting process, of course, so the likelihood of someone truly incompetent being voted into a position of importance is small.

But the appointment process is almost guaranteed to produce the most qualified candidate, since experience, qualifications, and the insight of an individual's vision for an organization are what is necessary to secure the position, not the number of friends one has.

Think of it this way: would you want popular elections to determine who gets to be the chief of police? Or the surgeon general? Or the secretary of the treasury?

You want these people to be well-qualified for the positions they occupy, not more popular than the next guy.

The electoral process is fully capable of weeding out the bad apples from the bushel. But it's not a perfect system. We should work with the system best suited to produce the best leaders.