Vote of no confidence
Did student disenfranchisement determine the elections?
Friday Night. Goodricke Bar. A lot of noise being made. Due in part, it has to be noted, to the rowdy chanting of the testosterone fuelled Roses victors, but largely culpable was a subtler group of politically minded students, no less passionate, outraged at the shambles of the “accidental disenfranchisement” of Thursday’s election.
This infringement of a basic civil liberty had unfair repercussions for both voters and candidate. Baying for blood, it would seem, was occurring both on and off the pitch. Physical and intellectual warfare hit York this weekend.
The first point of discontentment that needs raising is whether these lost votes would have affected the outcome of the election. Our voting behaviour can be classified using the various socio-economic divisions that occur in our society. Statistically, students tend to vote left of centre, in contrast to the more reactionary preferences of the older generations who habitually swing to the right-hand side of the political scale. Therefore, with only students affected by the registration complication, this had a potentially disproportionate effect on the end result. Throw low student turnout into the mix, which inadvertently gives a larger voice to the antiquities of Heslington, and you have reached the nucleus of the brewing dissatisfaction.
As it happens, the Liberal Democrat victory was sound, as a split vote between the Labour and Green parties had ensured a return for the incumbent. Although it is galling for those who had their chance to vote stifled, the rather large margins suggest that the ratios would not have changed critically with a higher turnout.
So, this is therefore a crusade of principles that unites all individuals, regardless of party preference. It is refreshing for a political discussion to focus, for once, on what unites us, rather than what drives us apart. Together, we have concluded that the following are basic electoral criteria and practices, which unfortunately were absent from Thursday’s proceedings.
When living on campus, students should automatically be registered to vote. Fact. When turning up at the polling station, all students should be allowed to draw a cross next to their candidate of choice. Fact. All students should have had the opportunity to marvel at the serendipitous fortune that was the rhyming couplet created by the surnames of the two electoral front runners. Fact. So why were nearly 10% of undergraduate voters denied these basic rights?
Before continuing, I do have to concede on a pedantic point of technicality: responsibility to check our presence on the electoral roll ultimately rests with individual students. Fair enough. Yet communications from the University in the run-up to the election suggest that enough evidence exists for us to condemn their actions as irresponsible, albeit well meaning.
Exhibit A: my York email account. These messages fail to exonerate the administrational authorities from the blame being channeled towards them over this issue. Facebook alerts aside, my inbox testifies that many students were implicitly told they were already registered to vote.
Friday 20th April: I received an email saying “there is a polling card for you at the College Reception. You will need this when you go to vote at the Local Government Election”. So far, so good. A pleasant reminder of our democratic right, before it was undermined, with the commendable intention of encouraging student turnout. However, note the absence of reminder about verifying our presence on the electoral roll.
Wednesday 2nd May: Just after midday, less than 24 hours before the big day, I was informed that “If you’re living in College accommodation, you’ll automatically be registered to vote.” This was followed by “You can vote without your polling card”. This is cyber-clad Times New Roman proof, not to mention the polling card comment which actively encouraged students to have no bureaucratic involvement in the whole process.
The University has violated its duty of care towards the student body by being unclear and imprecise over the information they have supplied to us regarding the formalities surrounding the Local Elections. I also reproach their negligence for the repercussions it may have on encouraging future participation in the democratic arena. This whole incident has provided the already politically lethargic population of young adults with yet more ammunition to justify apathetic abstention.
While this scandal could be bantered around by those with the power to do something pro-active, I sincerely hope that the voices on campus will inspire a proper investigation into these inaccuracies, and that the findings will be aimed at preventing any such misfortune occurring in the future.
