Deliberation

This time of year, near the end of Winter Quarter, is usually one of transition. Dorms, fraternities and sororities, student groups and even ASG will soon enough elect the new faces of their organizations for the coming year. Some of these elections just have one popular vote, but usually that’s not the case.

In most elections there are the statements by candidates, followed by a question-and-answer session, leading to deliberation without the candidates, which is then finally concluded by a vote. Opening statements and questioning are pretty standard, but the deliberation is a fascinating process.

Going into deliberation, there’s an interesting mix of opinions. Some people have their minds made up strongly for certain candidates, usually through some previous connection. Others just really dislike certain candidates for similar reasons. And many walk into deliberation with undecided minds, eager to hear what others have to say in hopes of coming to a decision.

And the game is on. Different factions of polarized support will advocate or criticize candidates, struggling to win over the mass of undecided voters. It’s all about strategy. You don’t want to come off as too strong, or you might turn voters off. But if you see the tide going against your preference, you’re going to speak up. And when things are going your way, it’s best to keep quiet, because you want to conserve your persuasive capital. Sure, everyone can have an opinion, but when it’s one person speaking over and over again, the effect tends to be lost.

And even going into deliberation, everyone has different levels of persuasive capital. Some are highly respected, and their word goes far. Others are seen as the slacker goofballs who don’t really carry any weight. It all comes together in deliberation, and it’s so interesting to see all the different agendas and strategies play out.

And I’m genuinely intrigued by this. It’s a heated psychological battle that takes persuasive skills and good perception. But deliberation can be a dirty, underhanded and completely unjust way to choose a candidate. I understand why it can help to discuss a candidate, but there are too many negatives for me to support it.

The main problem with deliberation is candidates can’t defend themselves. The idea of knowingly talking about a person without giving them a chance to defend certain criticisms just sounds inherently unfair. Obviously all candidates have certain problems, but ask them directly about them. Use the question-and-answer session to really ask the meaningful questions you’re wondering about. That’s better than basing your decision of something said in deliberation that might very likely be guided by an ulterior motive.

In theory deliberation sounds like a good thing, but it really isn’t in practice. I’ve sat through quite a few deliberation sessions over the past few weeks, and in each one, I’ve thought the same thing: “Shouldn’t I come to this decision on my own? Should I listen to some of the incredibly polarized things being said right now, when I don’t even know the person for myself?” Even when I say things in deliberation, I question why what I say should have any sway over someone else’s vote.

It’s your vote. Do everything you can to find out the information you need. Listen to the statements, judge past actions, ask good questions and think through the options. But why go through an indirect, potentially biased source to find out what you want to do? That’s not fair to the candidate or the voter.