In the Special Elections for academic year (AY) 2023–2024, there were only two candidates running for the Senate across all colleges, and five candidates for the Legislative Council (LC), all from the College of Education (COEd). In the Special Elections for AY 2022–2023, there was only one candidate for the House of Representatives (HoR) from the then-College of Science and Computer Studies (CSCS), and one candidate for LC from the College of Liberal Arts and Communication (CLAC). In the 2022 General Elections, there were three candidates across both the HoR and the Senate, and two candidates for the LC from the CLAC. In the 2021 General Elections, there was only one candidate for the HoR from the CSCS, and five candidates for LC, all from the College of Engineering, Architecture, and Technology (CEAT). For both the 2021 and 2022 elections, the University Student Election Commission (USEC) included a list of elective positions without candidates, while the special elections featured no such thing.
As the 2025 Midterm Elections highlight the significance of national legislative positions (i.e., party-list representatives and senators), there is a distinct irony in seeing our University’s apathy towards electing our legislatures. At a time when students clamor for representation and participatory decision-making at the national level, why don’t we see the same thing here?
One of the flagship changes of the current Constitution was the introduction of the Legislative branch, which was meant to empower sectoral representation in government. In every election since its ratification, however, the vast majority of legislative positions feature no candidates running. While uncontested elections are not new in our history, this phenomenon has a more profound effect given the introduction of new elective positions and the fortuitous phase-out of political parties. To deal with the prospect of vacancies, the Constitution allows for the temporary appointment of elective positions, where either the executive of the Program Council (PC) or the Governor of the College Student Government (CSG) can issue a Writ of Election to fill these vacancies. While it is implied that a special election should take place, there is no language which requires a date of election. Taken as a hindrance, virtually every college forgoes setting a date, thereby allowing these temporary appointments to become permanent. In effect, the necessity of an electoral campaign is diminished—and students take notice.
Nevertheless, one loophole cannot entirely explain the dearth of legislative candidacies. After all, there is the simple truth that campaigning is never easy. Not only is there a significant standard for effort toward concern and policy-based discourse, but also a necessary degree of vulnerability in conversing, connecting, and even disagreeing with one’s constituents. It is a lonely job to put in the effort and put yourself out there for politics. Moreover, the actual positions appear to be a largely thankless job—both in terms of administration-set incentives and student-based recognition. Altogether, campaigning appears as a significant personal and logistical commitment, for which there is little evident gain.
Usually, these concerns are exactly what a political party or organization is for, often offering logistical support and resources within a socially reinforcing system. But as previously mentioned, recent years have seen a notable absence. Following dissolutions during the pandemic, the break in continuity from political parties now appears permanent.
While informal ties play a continuing role, it is apparent that the intercollege networks for formal, political organization no longer exist, replaced instead by diffuse and non-ideological interest groups. Given their absence, candidates face little choice other than to run independent campaigns alone. Because the appointment system offers an out, aspiring public officials can reasonably ask, “Why bother with campaigns if I can get appointed later?”
Of course, any democracy where elections are optional is a farce. Yet, our political system sees administration after administration wherein the overwhelming majority of public officials are privately selected. Even with quality controls over appointments, aspiring public officials do not need their constituents’ assent to represent their interests. Despite the explicit aim of sectoral representation, most legislators don’t have to get to know their constituents, and vice versa. In effect, there is no real need for any public official to develop a platform for which they could be held accountable. By forgoing the necessity of campaigns, there is no room for debate, deliberation, or discussion. Consequently, the government becomes non-ideological and nonpartisan, where each official’s interests are atomized from each other and elusive from their constituents. Across both students and student-leaders, political participation is thus reduced to academic necessity, rather than the discursive expression of different interests characteristic of a genuine democracy.
To reinvigorate democracy in our University, there must be significant reforms that address the push-and-pull factors surrounding student politics. To start with, there must be a constitutional amendment that closes the appointment loophole and requires a Special Election to proceed. Second, there must be discussion to rationalize current electoral features, particularly the role of abstentions and joint-ticket voting. Third, additional benefits for elected officials should be explored, such as academic incentives and discounts. Fourth, the conduct governing independent candidates should be reevaluated, allowing for coherent alliances as the basis of future organization, rather than inflexible distinctions. Fifth, the regulations for political parties must be reconsidered, particularly in terms of institutional approval, necessary activities, and the rules surrounding accreditation, suspension, and dissolution.
Altogether, the goal of such reform is to emphasize the necessity of elections, while encouraging participation on both an individual and organizational level through a reduced threshold and increased incentives. If public service requires standards as high and mighty as its responsibilities, then electoral campaigns serve as the test. Given the type of candidate our University is generally known to support, none of these ideas are out of step with the values of Lasallian education. Formalizing the democratic ideal of fair, meaningful engagement through elections is simply practicing what we preach.