When the freshman, sophomore and junior classes were asked to vote on the Senate’s proposal for a community service graduation requirement at the class elections, 69 percent of students voted. This percentage reflects that out of a possible 1,296 eligible voters, only 897 handed in a ballot.
The poll results revealed that 52 percent of voters favored the community service requirement, entitled Proposition One, while 48 percent opposed the proposition. Eighty-three students turned in ballots with neither option circled.
But with a 35-vote difference between the “yes” and “no” options, even a slight increase in votes could have altered the results. The conditions of the election, therefore, led to an unreliable referendum.
We recognize the importance of a strong student voice at South and support the growth of the Senate. In a large school that is part of a larger system, having a Senate is essential to representing the student body.
The Senate has already implemented beneficial policies, including the release of sophomores from study hall after their first semester and the creation of a recycling project.
A permanent referendum policy would allow the Senate to pass legislation that could further benefit students. In this case, however, the Senate’s approach to the referendum lacked organization and was ineffective.
The low number of votes is proof that the Senate’s tactics were unsuccessful in educating students and encouraging them to vote.
The Senate planned to present speeches supporting and opposing the referendum during the elections for each class. Due to miscommunication, Senate members only gave speeches during the B block junior elections.
In an effort to raise student awareness of the referendum, the Senate posted signs around the school that urged students to vote either in favor of or in opposition of the proposition. These signs, however, were not placed effectively and did not explain the ramifications of a “yes” or “no” vote.
The Senate also sent out an e-mail to all homeroom teachers explaining the community service proposition and the referendum. Unfortunately, many teachers did not receive the e-mail in time to share it with their advisory. Others chose not to read it at all.
The Senate’s attempt to spread word through Facebook groups was also unsuccessful. For many students, the referendum group was just one of many on a long list of notifications, not to be read or taken seriously.
Even with all of the Senate’s efforts, as students entered the field house on May 29, most were unaware that Proposition One would appear on the ballot. Thus, many did not know what a ‘“yes†or “no†vote signified and arbitrarily checked a box.
These arbitrary votes, however, had the potential to impact future students.
Because there was a four percent majority, the Senate will pursue its work on a future community service requirement.
But with ballots that may not even accurately reflect the majority opinion, the Senate may be furthering this issue for no reason.
Such an important decision deserves serious thought and full understanding.
In order to gain the respect and credibility that it deserves, the Senate must find effective methods of spreading awareness of propositions before releasing them for consensus. The Senate must also create a voting system that will provide more accurate figures.
The Senate’s recent growth marks an advance in student representation at South, but to justly and effectively document and voice the students’ opinions, the Senate must be more organized in its execution of referendums.
