The Four-eyed Journal » Campus politics

How does it work: DLSU-D Student Election System

jhay — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 05:06:28 +0000

Today is the first of the two Election Days in which students of DLSU-D will vote for a new set of University and College Student Council officers.

From a total of 97 candidates, 49 came from Samahan ng mga Estudyanteng Naninindigan para sa Tunay na Reporma at Ordinansa (SENTRO) political party, 46 came from SINAG Political Party while two are running as independent candidates.

They are contesting a total of 64 positions in the 7 College Student Councils and the lone University Student Council.

The total number of student-voters in DLSU-D is estimated to number around 12,000. However, year after year, the average voters’ turnout is around 30-45%. It’s a long standing issue which deserves a separate discussion in another post for another time.

Today, I will deal with one of the most pressing questions with regards to the elections: “How are winners of the elections determined?”

The answer can be found in Sections 112 and 113, Article XIII of the 2008 Revised Student Election Code of DLSU-D, which reads:

Section 112. USC Officers. Candidates who have obtained the highest total percentage of votes cast in all colleges shall be the winners for the said positions in the USC.

The winning candidates are determined in the following manner: first, each candidate’s collegiate electoral score is determined by obtaining the percentage of votes cast for him/her in each college, second, each candidate’s electoral collegiate score is combined, and third, the candidates with the highest combined collegiate electoral scores shall be the winners of the election for
USC Officers.

Section 113. CSC Officers. Candidates who have obtained the highest total percentage of votes cast in all program courses offered in their respective college shall be the winners for the said positions in the CSC.

The winning candidates are determined in the following manner: first, each candidate’s program electoral score is determined by obtaining the percentage of votes cast for him/her in each program offered in his/her respective college, second, each candidate’s electoral program score is combined, and third, the candidates with the highest combined program electoral scores shall be the winners of the election for CSC Officers.

This is what has been called as the Collegiate Electoral Score system. The wording of the provisions are clear on how it works, but it’s a lot easier to understand by looking at it’s formula version:

Formula for the Collegiate Electoral Score

A candidate’s Collegiate Electoral Score in each of the 7 colleges are then added together for his/her final score. The candidate with the highest final score would be the winner for the position he/she contested.

The same formula is used in the College Student Council elections, but instead of “Votes cast in a college“, it will be “Votes cast in a program” or a course in that college. Then, all the scores are again added together. The candidate with the highest score wins the position he/she contested.

Does this formula conform with the 2008 USC Constitution? Yes it does. The USC Constitution simply requires that USC Officers be elected at large by the bonafide students of DLSU-D. (Sec. 2, Art. V, 2008 USC Constitution)

By “at large” it means all the students in the University. However, within the University, there are seven colleges with differing student populations. Some colleges are twice or even triple the size of another college in terms of student population. An example would be the College of Business Administration which has the largest student population of over 3,000 students. This is more than double the population of the College of Criminal Justice Education whose population is no more than 1,000 students.

So before the Collegiate Electoral Score system was introduced, student elections in DLSU-D have been dominated by political parties with solid support from the largest colleges namely the College of Business Administration and College of Engineering, Architecture and Technology.

The voices of the smaller colleges are drowned by the votes of the biggest colleges. That is not in line with the essence of democracy, that is a ‘virtual dictatorship’ of a few colleges.

In order to remedy this unfair situation, the framers of the 2008 Revised Student Election Code of DLSU-D devised the Collegiate Electoral Score system. It was inspired by the Electoral College system used in the election of US Presidents.

Because like DLSU-D, the United States of America faced essentially the same problems in every election, there are states that are more numerous than other states in terms of population. William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director of the Federal Election Commission Office of Election Administration explained:

Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the [US] Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a “favorite son” from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.

Paraphrasing Mr Kimberling in the context of DLSU-D elections, USC officers would always be decided by the largest, most populous colleges with little regard for the smaller colleges under the old system. Such candidates may have the highest votes in the election, but it is not the popular majority from all the seven colleges in the University.

So in setting up the Collegiate Electoral Score system for DLSU-D, the framers of the 2008 Revised Election Code adopted the principle that each of the seven colleges be given equal weight during elections. The system will also ensure that the winning USC officers would have the majority support of students from each of the seven colleges, not the majority of just one or two colleges.

The new system creates a more level playing field for political parties their candidates and it even gives a chance for independent candidates to take on veteran players, this ultimately leads to a more dynamic and vibrant student-politics in DLSU-D. Equally important, it gives real meaning to one of the oldest slogans in the USC – “unity amidst diversity.”

Disclosure: I was a member of the Student Election Code Revision Convention. I present, I am affiliated with SENTRO Political Party.

Updated Guide to the 2008 USC Constitution

jhay — Thu, 27 May 2010 08:34:06 +0000

While discussing about the revisions to the Student Handbook of DLSUD with the Dean of Student Services, we cannot help but talk about the 2008 USC Constitution and we always end up with one conclusion: student-leaders need more time to study, understand and implement the provisions of the said constitution.

This is timely because a new set of USC officers have just started their official term and are well in the middle of preparing for their plans and programs for the new school year. They have a clear mandate of implementing the 2008 USC Constitution and so it is essential that they understand its provisions.

To help them and every other student-leader and even ordinary students of DLSU-D in understanding the 2008 USC Constitution, I have decided to update the “layman’s guide” I wrote back in 2008. We used this in promoting for the new USC Constitution in the run-up to the plebiscite for its ratification. Now I publish its updated version to continue the effort of evangelizing the student-leaders and students of DLSUD about the 2008 USC Constitution. (If you don’t have Flash or it is disabled, you can click on the link to read it on Scribd.)

Guide to New 2008 USC Constitution

Hopefully, with this new guide publicly available on the web, many more student-leaders and students would be familiar with the 2008 USC Constitution and help each other in implementing its noble provisions, because after all, the document was created for their benefit.

If you have questions or comments about the guide and the 2008 USC Constitution itself, please don’t hesitate in raising them in the comments section below or you can contact me should you feel for a more private conversation.

2008 Revised Student Election Code of DLSU-D

jhay — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:16:28 +0000

Besides the national elections this coming 2010, Lasallians in DLSUD are also bracing for an election of their own, the kind that will select the next set of student-leaders to run and manage the University Student Council and the various College Student Councils in every college.

Legal experts are saying that Omnibus Election Code and many of our elections laws need to be updated, in order to bring them to speed with kind of politics our society has today. The same could be equally said of the election laws in DLSUD. It may only be used to govern the conduct of elections for a student government with more or less 11,000 students as its constituents, but the idealism and the student-politics in DLSUD is but a microcosm of the real-life politics outside of the campus.

So, the 2004 version of the Election Code has deemed inadequate, out-dated, and full of ambiguities. With respect to the drafters of the 2004 E-Code, the need for its revision is proof that in a span of four years, the student politics of DLSUD has evolved into a whole new level.

Hence, the 2008 E-code we’re implementing and promoting nowadays at school.

The 2008 Revised Student Election Code of de La Salle University-Dasmarinas

Obviously, the 2008 version is much more longer than its 2004 predecessor. In most respects and practical purposes, the new version is an expansion and clarification of the previous one. A result of filtering, sifting and consolidating the past experiences of political parties, student leaders, the University administrators and of course the student-commissioners themselves, from the problems that arose and the unnecessary limitations imposed by the old election code.

Briefly, the 2008 E-code has been expanded to cover the ordinary, non-partisan students, their conduct, behavior and liability with regards to the student elections. Political parties have been granted the freedom to conduct activities all throughout the year as opposed to limiting their “activeness” only during election season. The University Student Commission on Elections has been renamed Student Commission on Election, complete with a new organizational structure for a more flexible and efficient electoral board.

What else? We’ve also laid down a much clearer process of amending and revising the Election Code itself, so that when the time comes, in the distant future, the next set of student-leaders would be guided accordingly to bring the E-code on par with their edge.

I’d be talking about the specific parts of the E-code on the following days, hopefully, me fellow DLSUD students would be educated and motivated to actively participate in campus politics.

DLSUD Students: What should we change in the Student Handbook?

jhay — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 01:25:32 +0000

Later today, hopefully, the Student Handbook Revision Committee which is composed of faculty representing the various offices of the Office of Student Services will meet with the representatives of the various student sectors in DLSU-D to begin the process of revising the current Student Handbook.

Termed as the “Bible” for DLSUD students, or for any student for that matter, the Student Handbook is a codification of the school policies and regulations that directly affect the students in almost every facet of their university life.

From the prescribed school uniform to the grading policy, to the list of what is a school offense to its corresponding penalty, almost every thing is included in the Student Handbook.

It’s fortunate but rightfully so that revision of the handbook has been opened to student participation for it is our right because we students are the most important stakeholders in the university simply because we are its clients.

Hopefully though, the faculty and administrators would have an open and objective mindset so that proposals from us students and would be given merit and careful consideration without prejudice and self-serving biases so as to make the whole exercise fruitful, democratic and reflective of the student body’s sentiments, objectives, needs and aspirations.

So, my fellow DLSUD students. What do you want to change in the policies, regulations and processes in the Student Handbook?

I am all ears and the comments field below are very much open for your feedback, questions and recommendations.

I’d continue to blog about this whole process as we go along until a new Student Handbook has been completed.

For now, I’m off to my class!