The mission statement of the University of Massachusetts Student Government Association is “to establish and protect the democratic system for undergraduate university governance.” The organization prides itself on these grounds. In their attempt to play government and pretend democracy, the SGA hosts two elections each year, for senators in the fall and the executive cabinet in the spring.

At the time of the spring 2014 election, there were 19,697 undergraduate students at UMass Amherst. The SGA Elections Commission counted 2,324 votes in the undergraduate SGA election for president and vice president, for an overall undergraduate turnout of 11.8 percent. Just over ten percent of the undergraduate student body elected their leaders. Fortunately, the fall 2014 elections saw slight improvement with a turnout rate of 16 percent.

However, if you are familiar with these two election reports released by Elections Commission, you’ll notice that these numbers do not match those that were formally reported. But the discrepancies for both have simple explanations. Last spring, the Elections Commission invalidated 1,304 votes for president and vice president, dropping the turnout numbers. This fall, the Elections Commission reported, without a source, a student population of 22,000, which is noticeably higher than the Office of Institutional Research’s enrollment projection of 20,880. I choose to use the numbers that I feel are accurate.

Another hallmark of recent SGA elections is controversy, and no matter how slight, it happens every time. This fall, there was a complaint filed – apparently anonymously – against a candidate, Anthony Vitale. The complaining party alleged that candidate Vitale prematurely posted campaigning material, thus “insinuating the use of his own funds to create flyers.” Luckily for now-Senator Vitale, his 250 votes constituted 31.8 percent of the total cast, though voters could cast ballots for up to three candidates in Orchard Hill Residential Area.

Last spring opposing presidential candidates filed similar complaints against the invalidated candidate ticket. On one occasion, an opposing candidate complained that another had announced their candidacy early, resulting in a 24-hour suspension from campaigning, and just days later, they filed another complaint inferring that another candidate had used their own funds to produce materials. The Elections Commission later invalidated the ticket, of which I was a part, based on these and other circumstantial complaints. In that case, we received 35.9 percent, with a 4 percent margin of victory.

Senate elections have a significantly higher number of candidates each year, but somehow far fewer complaints are filed against the candidates. This indicates political apathy surrounding the SGA, but also that the SGA has an inability to conduct outreach and is averse to bylaw reform.

Insider influence is pervasive. In the spring 2014 elections, numerous mistakes and incompetency in the Elections Commission caused high tension between candidates and the commission. So it’s no surprise to me that they took swift action and were quick to enforce rules and sanctions against candidates. However, infractions committed by the Elections Chancellor himself, including soliciting votes, went overlooked; they regarded it as a harmless joke.

Elections that consistently report less than a 20 percent turnout are a joke. A set of archaic and self-contradictory bylaws is a joke. Claiming to be a representative organization with a senate largely composed of English and political science majors is a joke.

The joke is on us, the constituent students. We are the ones impacted by policies moved through the SGA. We are the ones enchanted by the idea of running for office ourselves, only to meet a snarky, exclusive system. We are the ones too apathetic to vote because we haven’t seen the apparent fruits of our great leaders’ labors.

I don’t hate our SGA, but I do care about it. And I want to empower the students who are questioning an institution that is too comfortable with mediocrity, pressuring an invisible student trustee and leading a campus that belongs to us.

Emily Devenney is a Collegian contributor. She can be reached at [email protected].