Senatorial Haste
Mr. Rohrscheib (co-president) recently proposed multiple undemocratic reforms to the campus referenda process:
By requiring that referenda be asked separately from the elections we can assure a much reduced voter turnout. So, not only are we guaranteeing a lower voter turnout, but we are simultaneously requiring a larger voter turnout to make referenda binding. This combination of forces against referenda will ensure that nearly all are void. To further these forces, the 10% margin of victory (a standard that most federal and state referenda and officials could not meet) allows the Student Senate to reject the collective advice and opinion of over 6000 students.
Most Student Senators would not even be able to meet these requirements. Each one of these requirements is inherently contrary to basic and universal democratic theory. I am familiar with many of the world’s constitutions, but I cannot think of any that require a specific percentage of their population to vote or that require supermajorities to pass referenda. These principles simply strip the process of its democratic core.
To compound the issue, a sexy little provision was slipped into Article VI. It states that Article V (coincidentally containing the rules for referenda) and the amendments currently at issue, cannot ever be amended. Apparently Mr. Rohrscheib believes that his amendments to Article V were written thoroughly pristine and perfect, never in need of future revision or inquiry.
Furthermore, the environment surrounding the passing of these amendments is highly suspicious. These amendments were raised and voted on at the tail-end of a lengthy meeting while barely maintaining quorum. Senators limited discussion and voted in favor of the issue as an expedient way of leaving the lengthy meeting, rather than as legitimate support for it. The amendments were explained hastily and unclearly (This has also occurred when adults are designing constitutions, specifically in Iraq and Japan). Most Senators don’t understand what was at issue, especially the last provision making the changes unamendable. The good news is that at the next meeting the issue can be made an item for action and then a ½ vote of the Senate is sufficient to revisit the amendments.
This issue arises partially from one silly issue: The Chief. It is arguable that had the Chief referendum question not been on the ballot two years ago, Mr. Rohrscheib would have beaten Matt Diller and won his seat as Student Trustee. It seems that he wishes to guarantee that the Chief never again holds sway over a Student Trustee election by separating referenda from the general elections. However, if an issue is of sufficient importance (the Chief) to an electorate then those voters ought to be able to simultaneously elect a representative of their views; big issues ought not be isolated from the election of representatives.
This is not an indictment of Joshua, he will soon reveal many of his new thoughts and comprimes on the matter. However, these issues deserve more attention than a hasty, late-night approval. We hope that at the very least ISS can revisit the amendments, so that Senators are fully aware of their potential impact. A Constitutional Convention early next semester is necessary to comprehensively resolve the numerous and complex questions.
Sincerely,
Billy Joe Mills
Honorable Joseph Vartan Danavi
Hassen Al-Shawaf
Tony Marsico
Daniel J. Nugent
1) Article III, part F: Referendum questions must be asked separate from student elections, with the lone exception of referendum questions about the renewal of student government fees.To begin, there is a logical inconsistency with the amendments listed above. The changes mandate that referenda cannot be up for a vote on a general election ballot while also requiring that 15% (~6000 students) of the student body vote on the referenda. Furthermore, it establishes a 10% (~600 vote difference) margin of victory to make referenda binding, whereas no margin had previously been required. These two principles are intensely at odds with each other.
2) Article V, part E: All referenda will be binding on the Student Senate. The Student Senate will not abridge the rights of referenda. For a referendum question to be binding upon the Student Senate, 15% of the student body votes on that question and there is at least a 10% margin of victory.
3) Article VI, part B: Article V. on Referenda and Article VI. on Amending the Constitution, may not be amended.
By requiring that referenda be asked separately from the elections we can assure a much reduced voter turnout. So, not only are we guaranteeing a lower voter turnout, but we are simultaneously requiring a larger voter turnout to make referenda binding. This combination of forces against referenda will ensure that nearly all are void. To further these forces, the 10% margin of victory (a standard that most federal and state referenda and officials could not meet) allows the Student Senate to reject the collective advice and opinion of over 6000 students.
Most Student Senators would not even be able to meet these requirements. Each one of these requirements is inherently contrary to basic and universal democratic theory. I am familiar with many of the world’s constitutions, but I cannot think of any that require a specific percentage of their population to vote or that require supermajorities to pass referenda. These principles simply strip the process of its democratic core.
To compound the issue, a sexy little provision was slipped into Article VI. It states that Article V (coincidentally containing the rules for referenda) and the amendments currently at issue, cannot ever be amended. Apparently Mr. Rohrscheib believes that his amendments to Article V were written thoroughly pristine and perfect, never in need of future revision or inquiry.
Furthermore, the environment surrounding the passing of these amendments is highly suspicious. These amendments were raised and voted on at the tail-end of a lengthy meeting while barely maintaining quorum. Senators limited discussion and voted in favor of the issue as an expedient way of leaving the lengthy meeting, rather than as legitimate support for it. The amendments were explained hastily and unclearly (This has also occurred when adults are designing constitutions, specifically in Iraq and Japan). Most Senators don’t understand what was at issue, especially the last provision making the changes unamendable. The good news is that at the next meeting the issue can be made an item for action and then a ½ vote of the Senate is sufficient to revisit the amendments.
This issue arises partially from one silly issue: The Chief. It is arguable that had the Chief referendum question not been on the ballot two years ago, Mr. Rohrscheib would have beaten Matt Diller and won his seat as Student Trustee. It seems that he wishes to guarantee that the Chief never again holds sway over a Student Trustee election by separating referenda from the general elections. However, if an issue is of sufficient importance (the Chief) to an electorate then those voters ought to be able to simultaneously elect a representative of their views; big issues ought not be isolated from the election of representatives.
This is not an indictment of Joshua, he will soon reveal many of his new thoughts and comprimes on the matter. However, these issues deserve more attention than a hasty, late-night approval. We hope that at the very least ISS can revisit the amendments, so that Senators are fully aware of their potential impact. A Constitutional Convention early next semester is necessary to comprehensively resolve the numerous and complex questions.
Sincerely,
Billy Joe Mills
Honorable Joseph Vartan Danavi
Hassen Al-Shawaf
Tony Marsico
Daniel J. Nugent
posted by Illinois Student Senate | 11:15 PM
6 Comments:
A number of thoughts:
There's no such thing as a Federal Referendum.
I don't see these amendments as being "undemocratic." Stupid, yes, but not undemocratic. Let's be a little more precise in our language.
Since the co-presidents head the senate, and there's two of them, aren't they technically Consuls?
i like to consider one of them more like a dictator. And the other...well , lets just say hes always out of the "office"
Hey I think you guys have some really solid points, but no one really ever brings them like what you guys wrote up in the meetings where it really counts...
Squire:
First, I am curious as to your identity? I don't understand the anonymous blogging craze.
Second, federal referenda do exist in countries such as Canada, google the phrase if you wish to learn more.
Third, I denote things as undemocratic when they either run contrary to common democratic practices or when they limit the collective wisdom of the majority. I believe that the aforementioned provisions accomplish to satisfy both prongs of that definition.
Love,
Billy Joe Mills
"aforementioned provisions accomplish to satisfy"
Billy Joe - you shouldn't do such things to the english language after it has been so good to you.
Regarding democratic practices - 1) the provision w/ the 10/15 split isn't necessarily undemocratic. It doesn't void referenda results, it just allows the administration to consider the result of the referenda while still allowing the democratically elected (except for Hassen) senators to also speak on behalf of their constituents.
2) Seperating the questions doesn't limit the students ability to vote for either the candidate of their chosing or for a referneda question. All it does is asks the questions seperately so the two democratic events do not influence one another.
3) I concede that the 5% voter turnout provision to enact a student fee does run contrary to most democratic structures. We have a history of abuse that this provision was crafted to address. In the 1998 fall referendum when the administration wanted ISG to be funded by a student fee again so the referenda was not publicised, so the fee passed and was charged to the entire student body even though hardly anyone voted on the question. Over 5% of the student body has voted in every other online referenda whether or not it was attached to student elections. This provision is a safe guard to protect the student body from fees being assessed when hardly anyone votes on the matter.
Joshua,
You have made attacks upon my use of the language, however, I do not mind since you are attacking entirely acceptable grammar. But, if you're going to make those types of attacks then I suppose it is my duty to humiliate you for consistently spelling the word "separate" incorrectly (You always write "seperate").
Booya Mr. Law Student.
Love,
WJM
P.S. The kiddie game is down the street.
Post a Comment
<< Home