In order to win an election, candidates know they must go out and rally the voters. This means standing on the street corner for hours shaking hands. This means posting flyers. This means going door-to-door and meeting constituents.
Often the candidate who does the most work meeting as many voters as possible is the one who wins.

Campaigning can do a lot for the voters, too. Most people are so busy they either do not have the time or care to seek out information about those people who represent them in local governments. In addition, many citizens just do not know what their representatives do for them. However, if a candidate takes the time to come to the voters, citizens are likely to become better informed, and are more likely to actually go out and vote.

In Madison, many local candidates go door-to-door in apartment buildings and homes to get their names out. According to state law, candidates can do this except for in or near state buildings — including dorms.

The number of students who vote is very low. In February’s primaries, only seven students voted in the Lakeshore dorms. Reasons given for such apathy are students just do not care, they do not know enough about the issues or they vote in their hometown rather than in Madison.

Candidates are always trying to rally the student vote, and they are always complaining that not enough students vote. One such reason there is such a high level of apathy could be regulations on where candidates are allowed to campaign.

This week candidates running in the special city election and in the county board election were asked to leave the Lakeshore dorms after going door-to-door talking to students. County Board member Ech Vedder, District 5, who was running for reelection Tuesday said he still goes to the dorms despite the law, because running for public office requires door-to-door contact.

University policy prohibits door-to-door campaigning, and it would require a change in state law to allow candidates to be in the dorms.
The state has this law on the books so public property remains neutral in political situations.

Changing the law could have the potential to get students more involved in local politics. Most students do not know who their local representatives are and how much those candidates can do for them. Permitting campaigning in dorms has the potential to increase that. Then again, if students do not care now, there is no guarantee they will care if a candidate knocks on their door.