Editor’s Note: This piece is one-half of a duo debating whether Student Government election polls should be made public. The sister-article which argues in opposition can be found here.

At Parker, we pride ourselves on the robust strength of our Student Government. Through participation in plenary, placement on a committee, and an abundance of leadership roles, each and every member of our Upper School has a tangible say in the manner in which our school is run. We have the power to select our leadership, give input on the rules which govern our academic experience, and influence lasting change on Parker and those who attend it.

Just as with any other healthy, functioning democracy, the primary leaders of our Student Government––roughly 70 committee heads and half a dozen Cabinet members––are mostly determined by election. Students choose to subject themselves to the trials and tribulations of campaigning, with the ultimate goal of holding an elected office.

These candidates permit themselves to be scrutinized and judged until their fate is ultimately decided upon by their peers in the form of an election. They choose to enter into a competition where the validity of their ideas and leadership are voted on by the entire student body for the potential privilege of leading our community in the coming school year.

Given the weight and importance of this competition, it baffles me as to why Parker hides a major factor of the outcome: the vote totals. When all is said and done, the student body is only granted knowledge of who won without any evidence or further backing. We’re not presented with records of any sort. I’m not arguing that we have the same level of election protection as the American government, but a few basic steps couldn’t hurt.

The primary argument in favor of this system is that releasing vote totals could hurt student’s feelings. That after weeks of conversation about their campaign’s validity, after time being granted in Student Government for students to critique candidates in front of the entire Upper School, after competing among friends and classmates, the numbers are going to hurt the most.

This reality was breached for a brief moment this year as a coalition of students––in which I was briefly involved––polled the Upper School’s voting preference in four key races in an attempt to predict the electoral winners. The polls showed a representative sample of the community and were released to the interest of most students. Yet, despite positive feedback from students, teachers and administrators felt the need to take action in speaking with the pollsters and placing boundaries on future projects because a few candidates were not pleased with the results.

The student body had a moment of clarity, one in which this experiment of releasing vote totals was tested by proxy. The reception was fantastic. It sparked discussion of candidates and policy and engaged students, making our democracy seem that much more like the one it aims to replicate. The trial worked, but we chose to place the few over the whole.

The potential to hurt people’s feelings, especially the feelings of those who choose to place themselves up for election, is not a valid reason to avoid releasing election results altogether and stagnates the progression and evolution of our civic discourse. The potential of losing should be a calculation candidates make when choosing to run.

Alas, we have collectively decided that the feelings of individual candidates are more valuable than the strength of our democracy as a whole. We’ve chosen not to treat ourselves like mature young adults, capable of accepting defeat and acknowledging our flaws, but like petulant children, in need of coddling and forever reassured by the lingering possibility that our defeat was not as great as it may seem.

We take great strides at Parker to protect our students from rejection, most prominently through no-cut policies in athletics and theater, but at what point does protecting the feelings of students stray too far from impending adult reality? When do we reach the point where we’re doing more harm than good?

Beyond the considerations to be made for the strength of our democracy, there’s a case for transparency and honesty in our elections as well. Votes are tallied by a group of outgoing seniors (some of whom hold office, some of whom do not) and tabulated by a faculty member more or less in secret.

While I don’t mean to suggest that our elections have been subject to foul play or tampered with in any capacity, the fact that we don’t take further affirmative steps to ensure that our votes are counted correctly and transparently seems like a glaring hole in our model democracy.

I’m not asking that votes totals be broadcast to the world or even archived, but merely presenting the vote totals in some temporary capacity — perhaps in an email alongside election results or on a restricted Parker-only website — would be a step forward. Even making the vote tallies available upon request, as opposed to broadcasting them to the general public, would be a sign of tangible progress. If the only reason we don’t release vote totals is to spare the feelings of losing candidates, there is no reason that losing candidates shouldn’t be able to privately see the vote totals upon request.

But they can’t.

I have run in six separate races for elected office in my four years at Parker, running in at least one race every year of my eligibility. I’ve experienced victory, but I’ve also experienced defeat. I understand the pain of losing a hard-fought race, but by the same ticket I’ve come to recognize that defeat is a perennial risk, a necessary evil in the gamble of candidacy.