The vote tallies for both the winning and losing contenders of the St. Edward’s University Student Government Association fall election were released to the general public Sept. 18 with one notable exception: The vote count for the losing freshmen candidates were missing. 

Elections Commissioner Margot Anne Cromack explained this omission, saying that there was little to be gained from releasing the losing candidates’ vote totals. She added that the average age of freshman candidates and their recent entrance into the university environment made Student Life reluctant to divulge the losing statistics.

We know St. Edward’s takes pride in providing a warm, welcoming environment to its new freshmen. This is one of our school’s most defining qualities and a comfort that upperclassmen appreciated during their transition into higher education.

However, a main function of a university is to prepare its students for the obstacles they will encounter after graduating. In an election outside of the St. Edward’s campus, results, whether good or bad, will be open to the public.

An elected official must be held to different and ultimately higher standards than a private citizen. When freshmen express interest in running for SGA office, they are given a lengthy packet explaining the intricacies of the electoral process and what would be expected from them upon election.

Absent from the packet, though, is the detail that a position in SGA is a legitimate public office and running for the seat subjects the candidate to the same standards of transparency as any other publicly elected position. This is not only left out of the packet for freshmen, but the packets for all positions in SGA.

By not clarifying this to each prospective candidate initially, SGA and Student Life are doing a disservice to the students who seek a position. Correcting this mistake after the fact by withholding vote totals is not a proper solution.

Instead, SGA should make it clear to each candidate up front that by entering an SGA election they are entering the public sphere of this university. This means the results of elections should be made public, no matter the outcome.

In refusing to reveal the losing freshmen candidates’ votes, the SGA is sheltering them from the reality of the possibility of defeat, and in essence, robbing them of the full experience of running for office.

SGA is currently considering amendments to its constitution designed to make it more transparent and accountable to students—a goal we applaud. How, though, does withholding freshman election results reconcile with the amendments’ aims?

We are just steps away from the real world. The point of participating in the elections, among other reasons, is to prepare oneself for what comes after receiving a diploma. By withholding specific voting information, SGA undermines the integrity of the election as well as the authenticity of the experience for the freshmen who choose to run.