In preparation for the Class of 2029’s student government elections, which concluded last week, the Dartmouth campus took on a familiar rhythm. Each would-be class senator released polished Instagram graphics, crafted statements about community and connection and circulated Google Docs paired with the promise of hearing students’ voices. Group chats begin to overflow with reminders to vote for a friend of a friend. The walls of Novack Cafe are plastered with headshots of freshmen in suits that remind you to “VOTE!”
However, amid all the ’29s fierce campaigning, it’s hard to shake the feeling that we have all seen this before. It seems that name recognition wins out over policy and creativity is favored over practicality. Through this, one surprising truth becomes clear: Even an Ivy League school cannot resist the appeal of a high-school-style popularity contest.
On the most basic level, it seems that the structure of freshmen elections disregards genuine policy. The freshman class hasn’t even been at Dartmouth for two months. Most of us are too preoccupied with just taking everything in to think in-depth about what the College needs to change. Our only way forward is to vote for who we know.
Further, Dartmouth’s environment emphasizes familiarity: we meet one another quickly — and often superficially — in the early stages of the term, and the impressions we leave end up carrying weight when voting rolls around. This constant stream of rapid introductions, paired with the lack of formal avenues to compare candidates’ platforms, gives rise to a pattern of voting for friends or acquaintances.
This dynamic isn’t unique to Dartmouth. Across the country, it is clear that voters have become increasingly less focused on the nuances of candidates’ agendas, instead defaulting to slogans and sound bites. As a result, political identity increasingly functions like brand identity, where candidates are evaluated less for what they can accomplish than for what they symbolize.
It is no coincidence that two of our nation’s most-discussed political figures, Donald Trump and Zohran Mamdani, have both built their campaigns not just on policy positions, but on populist narratives that seek to tap into the mass’s desire for change. Though the ideologies differ, the strategy remains the same, setting a damaging precedent of basing politics on vague ideals.
When we make decisions in this manner at Dartmouth, we risk turning the student government into a mere performance of democracy rather than a genuine practice. The potential ramifications are even greater. We risk losing a fundamental respect for civic life that we must carry into our adulthood. After all, if we reduce our elections to a meaningless exercise in social signaling here, will we truly change course once the stakes are higher?
Of course, it would be unfair to fault this year’s winners for playing the game well. They campaigned effectively within the system they were given. Still, as we move further into our Dartmouth experience, it would behoove us to think seriously about the weight of democracy on our own campus. Before we take on the world beyond Hanover, we should take note of how quickly we adopt its habits — and ask ourselves whether they are instincts we want to keep.
Opinion articles represent the views of their author(s), which are not necessarily those of The Dartmouth.
