To the Editor:
Stuart A. Reid's analysis of the just concluded trustee election is well thought out and summarizes the results fairly ("Trustee elections tap into issues of College's future," May 18). There are other considerations not mentioned in the article. Most important, the number of alumni who chose to participate in this election, as in past elections, was abysmally low for an alumni body that likes to think of itself as involved with Dartmouth. According to the College press release, 15,334 votes were cast representing 24 percent of the eligible voters. I believe the primary reason for this apathy is that many alumni don't realize the significance of their vote and are confused by the system that allows voting for one, two or all candidates. This is not the way we are used to voting in elections in the United States.
This low voter turnout, combined with the voting system used, leads to two possible results. First, any dedicated group of alumni, never mind their allegiance or prejudice, can assemble behind one candidate, focus their vote, and bring them in with a small plurality and a very small percent of eligible voters.
For example, Peter Robinson received 7,356 votes, 48 percent of votes cast. However, that represents only 12 percent of the total alumni eligible to vote. His total is a fair number, and, using a one vote, one candidate system, he might have won anyway. But, if an alumnus had only one vote per open seat, he might not have received that many votes. Or, if a larger number of alumni had voted, another candidate might have prevailed. We'll never know. What we can say with reasonable assurance is that, of those 7,356 votes, well over half, probably closer to 75 percent, came from a dedicated group of alumni who are sympathetic to organizations committed to anti-administration policy and structure.
All you have to do is cruise these groups' blogs to see how they energized their supporters and those who had not made up their minds. Next year, another dedicated group with another agenda could mass their forces and achieve the same result. This polarization could lead to an unhealthy division of the alumni into adversarial camps. The second possible result of the low voter turnout is speculative, but not too far-fetched.
A number of years ago (1988), an ad hoc committee was created by the trustees to examine the trustee election process. One of the issues this committee considered was changing the mix of alumni and charter trustees from the even split to favor more charter trustees. Predictably, that idea went nowhere at the time. However, if the alumni continue to participate in trustee elections in such low numbers that any "special interest" group can support one candidate and elect him, this will result in a less than representative board of alumni elected trustees and will cause the trustees, as a whole, to raise the issue of alumni trustee voting once again.
Four actions are required. First, we need to change the method of voting. Second, we need to find a way to energize the alumni to participate and get trustees elected that are representative of the entire alumni body. Third, we need to bring the campaign process into the 21st century. Fourth, we need to find a way to tone down the rhetoric. This weekend the Alumni Council is meeting in Hanover. I hope they will have a vigorous, open and honest debate on this subject.
