The recent election of class representatives raises a series of questions about the autonomy of the Election Commission. Many actions of the Commission broke with precedent for no discernible reason. This is despite the fact that the Commission included two experienced members.

The decision to release vote counts represents the largest detrimental change to our election process. The costs of publishing the vote count far outweigh any benefit. I completely understand the notion of a correlation between votes and ideas when considering vote counts in a governmental election. There is no parallel when considering elections at NYU Abu Dhabi, which are based more on trust and work ethic than ideas and platforms. In fact, given our use of approval voting, coupled with fields of candidates exceeding three individuals, mandates are tough to achieve and to recognize. It may be beneficial to reveal to candidates how close they were to winning; however, this information can be conveyed easily in a private manner to interested individuals.

There are three major drawbacks to releasing the vote tallies. First, revealing a vote count may be incredibly demoralizing. We are still a small and tight-knit student body. Seeing massive differences in the count only adds an additional stigma to the loss of an election. Second, the revelation may discourage continued involvement in Student Government. A low vote count might reduce perceptions of legitimacy. This would limit the ability of a losing candidate to remain involved in Student Government and to offer criticism to those in office. Third, running for office is a test. The publication of votes only increases the stakes of the test by adding an additional metric to differentiate the participants. This is an unnecessary barrier to encouraging students to run for office.

Though the release of the vote count represents my biggest qualm with the execution of the recent elections, my concerns do not end there. At least a dozen students had to register for the election because they did not have ballot access upon signing into the election system. This provided an extra cost to voting and in some cases, registration took several hours.

The forum of candidates offered no pull factors for students, despite a four-year tradition of providing snacks. The forum encouraged rambling speeches by doubling the time allotments for introductory remarks and questions. Students who wanted to hear from freshmen were subjected to over 30 minutes of speeches. It is no surprise that many people departed the forum prior to its conclusion.

Turnout numbers for the election still remain a mystery. In the past, this has been the primary measure of Student Government’s ability to attract attention and interest. It is also an important reflection on the pool of candidates as a whole. Turnout numbers are also an indicator of the quality of an Election Commission, which should make the effort to encourage individuals to vote and reduce the cost of voting.

By failing to provide polling stations at mealtimes, the Election Commission missed an important opportunity to increase the number of voters. Polling stations have been controversial in the past but they are effective at generating buzz about the election and reminding students that they should take the time to vote.

The responsibility for the problems outlined above does not fall entirely on the Election Commission. The current Student Government remains partially liable for the flaws in registration as well as the oddity of a three-day election period. Apparently, a typo was the source of increasing the voting time by twenty-four hours. In the past, Student Government assisted in logistical planning for the forum, setting up polling booths and in providing a clear timeline for public communications. The Student Government should have been much more proactive in providing guidelines to the Election Commission and preventing so many changes to the process.

It is now up to the General Assembly to outline effective measures for the prevention of continued flaws. The GA needs to mandate that no detailed results are released in the future and that the Election Commission provides ample opportunity for polling. Meanwhile, the Executive Board should reflect on its shortcomings in providing proper oversight to election officials. Everyone involved needs to take the steps to ensure smooth operations of elections into the future.