The students that actually took the time to cast their ballots on the first day of the Student Government elections were met with some confusing and seemingly out-of-nowhere questions in the form of referenda and a constitutional amendment.
The student body had to decide where to connect the arrows - but that's a whole other problem - next to some pretty poorly constructed options.
If you have yet to receive your SG (not the previously banned "I Voted") sticker, we're going to attempt to clear up some of the uncertainty or at least give it our best shot.
The first referendum question seemed pretty straightforward at first glance. In asking whether UF should denounce the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq, it seeks to determine whether students are for or against the war.
But, in that effort, it turned off students who wouldn't necessarily support an immediate withdrawal. Even further, the question is inappropriate as a ballot measure in and of itself because assuming that an entire university - administration, faculty and staff included - can agree about Iraq is a big leap of faith. How would an official condemnation be justified?
It would also be hypocritical to back a referendum that would needlessly politicize the campus in light of the recent outcry over President Bernie Machen's public endorsement of a presidential candidate.
If the question was limited to specifically represent only student opinion, that would be a different story. That is supposed to be what SG is all about. For these reasons, we encourage you to vote "no" on this question.
Moving on, the next referendum may have taken a bit longer to read, but at least it is a whole lot easier to answer. It's a no-brainer that there should be some independent oversight into where the university places - and makes - its billions.
If the university does create an independent committee to advise the Board of Trustees, that is one step closer to ensuring socially responsible investment of UF's $1 billion-and-growing endowment. UF's responsibility as the flagship university for the state of Florida demands that it set an example for how to handle financial affairs in a progressive way. Not to mention this would come with the added benefit of removing the motivation for the misguided Students for a Democratic Society protests. That's something we gladly support.
That leaves us with the next constitutional amendment - which was easy to overlook due to its sheer size and complicated constitutional speak. Maybe the crafters of the amendment weren't aware we didn't have the extra time to study the SG constitution before heading to the polls, but it probably would have been a good idea to include an explanation on the Web site.
As best we understand it, the amendment requests a reduction in the number of senators elected in the fall and spring. While this may disappoint those on the hunt for that next line on their resume, we have to promote a resounding "yes" on this one. Though the number of senators will only be reduced by a maximum of 10 for each term, that's still a step forward to reducing a bloated senate.
Is there room for that many people at The Swamp Restaurant anyway?
