2008 Woodie Awards
Punishing the candidates who ran a clean campaign
Issue date: 4/24/08
From the view of an incumbent in the sophomore class presidential election, it is not fair for parties like myself to be affected by the errors of individuals in the executive elections. The postponement of the class elections meant that my time scheme, which included distributing flyers a couple of days before voting, hanging posters with a printed expiration date of this last Monday and telling people to vote last Friday, was nullified. I did not have the time or the money to reprint flyers and mailers to redistribute a week later, and I suspect that most others who took their campaign seriously didn't either. However, candidates who were lazy and didn't campaign as much previously got an extra chance.
The last upsetting development in the election process occurred on Tuesday night, when Student Council chose to table the motion to disregard senior votes in the executive election process. This decision in effect enforces the mandate by the Appeals Committee that states, "Senior Votes do count in Executive Board elections." In a democratic institution such as Student Council, it doesn't make the least bit of sense to include votes from a group of people who will not be affected by their decision, since the seniors will no longer be present when the new candidates are to serve their term. By nature, disinterested parties should not have voting power. In U.S. government elections we certainly don't see residents of Maine voting for senatorial candidates in California.
It is a shame that this year's election process turned out as it did, especially after the CSE spent so much time this past year on restructuring campaign rules and guidelines to avoid these types of incidents. I am only sorry for this year's candidates that these changes were so quickly overruled by the wave of a hand from the Appeals Committee. I say let's allow the CSE to do its job. When it comes to elections, more trust and authority should be given to the CSE, and the Appeals Committee should not be able to so easily disregard their decisions. As is exemplified in this situation, intervention from Student Council and the Appeals Committee in the election process has only made matters worse.
The last upsetting development in the election process occurred on Tuesday night, when Student Council chose to table the motion to disregard senior votes in the executive election process. This decision in effect enforces the mandate by the Appeals Committee that states, "Senior Votes do count in Executive Board elections." In a democratic institution such as Student Council, it doesn't make the least bit of sense to include votes from a group of people who will not be affected by their decision, since the seniors will no longer be present when the new candidates are to serve their term. By nature, disinterested parties should not have voting power. In U.S. government elections we certainly don't see residents of Maine voting for senatorial candidates in California.
It is a shame that this year's election process turned out as it did, especially after the CSE spent so much time this past year on restructuring campaign rules and guidelines to avoid these types of incidents. I am only sorry for this year's candidates that these changes were so quickly overruled by the wave of a hand from the Appeals Committee. I say let's allow the CSE to do its job. When it comes to elections, more trust and authority should be given to the CSE, and the Appeals Committee should not be able to so easily disregard their decisions. As is exemplified in this situation, intervention from Student Council and the Appeals Committee in the election process has only made matters worse.
Be the first to comment on this story