O n April 1, then-Student Body President Christy Lambden vetoed a bill that would have put an instant runoff voting system in effect for future student body president elections.
At first, this may not appear concerning, but it is important to note that this is only the second bill that Lambden vetoed during his year-long tenure, and it was vetoed with no time left for the 95th Student Congress to override it. Furthermore, Lambden didn’t personally elaborate on his decision to veto the bill, and he did not answer interview requests that would have allowed him to further voice his reasonings to the student body.
Lambden’s latest refusal to interact with The Daily Tar Heel capped off a term where he avoided media interaction at all costs — having other delegates speak on his behalf or declining to comment.
The roles of the Student Body President are many, but the most important of these is to serve as a voice for students in issues on or off campus. In order to successfully fulfill this role, it is important that student government be as transparent as possible, allowing external organizations to criticize operations, bringing accountability into the equation. Andrew Powell should follow suit of the many student body presidents that came before Lambden who directly communicated with those advocating for transparency for the student body and spoke for themselves to the media.
The instant runoff voting bill is a worthwhile proposal that has seen successful implementation at Duke and N.C. State among other UNC peer institutions . This bill has merit and should be reintroduced to the 96th Student Congress. If Powell sees fit to veto a similar bill in the coming year, he should properly explain why the absence of this system benefits UNC.
If instant runoff voting is not going to be implemented, it should not be the result of a technicality.
