By Andrea Ordonez
Months before I turned 18, I submitted my voter registration early so that I could be ready to vote in the 2008 Presidential election. I diligently watched the Presidential debates, one of which was at Hofstra University, and became politically involved with local government campaigns because I wanted to make good, educated voting choices. Even though many take their right to vote for granted, I took mine seriously; I chose those candidates who I believed would reform the policies that I wanted changed on the local, state, and national levels.
In college, I remained civically involved by reading various newspapers’ coverage of the midterm elections, and even volunteered at the 2010 New York State Gubernatorial Debate because I thought that such contact with state politicians would help me once again make well-informed decisions about who I would vote for.
According to the Pew Research Center, only 12 percent of the 18-29-year-old demographic voted in the 2010 midterm elections. I was one person among that 12 percent who ran to the elementary school next to Hofstra in between classes just so I could vote for the new state governor.
As someone who takes even the elections of local politicians seriously, I recently made a decision that goes against the civic engagement I have shown since first voting in 2008. I chose not to vote in this year’s Student Government Association elections; I just don’t feel the need.
This choice may not seem radical, seeing that participation in these elections is not a very popular thing. In last year’s SGA elections, only 10 percent of the student body voted. I, once again as part of the minority, voted in that election.
I initially thought that my personal desire to listen to and vote for student leaders who wanted to change aspects of Hofstra that I am not entirely satisfied with would overrule my dislike of small talk about the candidates. However, as seen in real politics, people do not just vote for politicians who vow to reform and implement new policies. They base their votes on media character and previous experiences. However, in real politics, we as voters may not personally know the candidates they choose. With student elections, the candidates who run are our friends, acquaintances, and classmates. We may know their personal strengths and vices so well that it conflicts with our objectivity.
Coverage of real politics is already negative, to the point that for many it seems excessive to read or hear every week about a new argument or conflict between members of SGA or regarding legislation. Such coverage has helped me realize that there actually was not a lot about Hofstra that I was disappointed about, and certainly nothing I was sufficiently angry about that would motivate me to vote.
The lack of interest in getting involved with this election on my part, and on the part of most of the student population can be interpreted both ways. From one view, it could mean that SGA has done a good job of keeping me satisfied with Hofstra. But from another, it could mean that they are not functioning as a proper representation of the student body’s interest. If they were, perhaps the student population would feel more motivated to vote in these elections.
Arguing over whose fault it is should not be a drastic matter after this election. While a lack of participation in any election can be disappointing, it is not the end of the world. After all, plenty of people do not even vote in presidential elections, yet still live quite contently.
