In the year 2006, many pop culture outlets published a fascinating statistical comparison between the voter turnout for the presidential election of 2004 versus the vote tally for the finale of the then-popular television show American Idol. Ryan Seacrest, host of American Idol, boastfully shared the results. The American Idol winner, Taylor Hicks, received 63.4 million votes. George W. Bush only received 62.4 million votes. The obvious reason for this: voter apathy toward the presidential candidates. We can blame America's voting on voter apathy, but, unfortunately, Brandeis petitions do not follow suit.

This past Thursday, the student body voted on many important senatorial and other committee positions for the Student Union. However, arguably the most important entity that was up for vote was the last question on the ballot: whether or not the student body supports the campaign for the school to divest from fossil fuel companies within its endowment portfolio.
The vote does not determine the actual action of the University-that is solely for the Board of Trustees to decide-but rather was a measure put in place to take the pulse of the student body on the issue. The divestment from fossil fuels campaign is both an important and contentious issue and this vote was vital to show the opinion of the students at large.
On the surface it would appear that this vote was a resounding "yes to divest," the phrase those running the campaigns have coined. The vote was 79 percent in favor and 21 percent against. However, upon further review, that is simply not the case. First and foremost, the actual vote was severely diluted, as the Union constitution mandates that for "petition" votes, abstain should not count toward the final tally. Yet, abstain was an option for the vote, with 15 percent of those who voted opting for it. With the abstain option, those who voted produced results of 69 percent in favor, 18 percent against, and, as mentioned before, 15 percent abstain. However, those votes were simply ignored in the official tally, producing the results of 79 percent and 21 percent, respectively, for yes and no.

After even further consideration, the vote was that much more exaggerated. Approximately 900 students voted "yes to divest" from fossil fuels. However this number must not be compared to those who voted, but to the student body at large. When comparing those numbers, 897 votes to the 3,500 undergraduate students, the result is only 25 percent in favor. Not nearly a high enough number to show student body support for the cause.

This analysis begs the obvious question: Why compare the vote to the entire student body as opposed to just those who voted? For all elections at Brandeis, we rarely see a high voter turnout and the numbers are always analyzed relative to those who voted. Why should this be any different?

The answer is as obvious as the question. The nature of the vote was inherently different than standard Union elections, or for any United States presidential election, for that matter. For any election, both on campus and off, by not voting you are implicitly stating that you either do not approve of any of the options or you simply are apathetic to voting, and, colloquially put, do not care. This vote is no different. By not voting, as a significant majority of the student body did, one is stating that one is apathetic to divestment from fossil fuels. By not voting in favor of divestment, one is virtually abstaining from voting for divestment.

On a campus like Brandeis where social justice is at the heart of every student, blaming the lack of votes on voter apathy, like the above comparison between American Idol and the presidential election, is not an option. The nature of the vote was to show support, not elect a candidate. Support needs to be shown, not chosen. The only burden placed on students to vote was a simple three clicks from their email, a minute -long ordeal at most. By not making those three simple clicks, you are choosing to not show support.

At the end of the day, a decision to support divestment, like the editorial board of this paper has, is at the discretion of the Board of Trustees. But if they were to base their decision solely on the opinion of the student body, then they would have no choice but to abstain.
*