2008 Woodie Awards
Editorial: The results are in
Issue date: 2/29/08 Section: Editorial/Opinion
02/29/08 - The poll results are in: and they count for absolutely nothing. Last night, both the Student Senate Elections Committee and one set of running mates for the senate presidential elections broke the rules, causing confusion and chaos surrounding the election polls. The university now has a student body president that wasn't technically elected by the student population, and an extremely angry runner-up who went against election rules to get ahead.
Not only that, but the Elections Committee, which is responsible for upholding those clearly-written rules, broke its own bylaws by not posting the numerical results of the elections and referenda directly after the close of the polls. There's a reason why the results are posted under the heading, "Unofficial: Subject to Challenge." Whether Josh Feinberg and Eric Klos were disqualified or not, the election results should've been posted directly after the polls closed. Now the running mates are choosing to appeal their disqualification and they're using the committee's violation of the bylaws as ammunition for their case.
But those same running mates clearly broke the campaigning rules. While the student supporters may have been out of their hands, the poster, the pens and the T-shirts were clear violations of the rules. Going the extra mile in that regard is not only disrespectful to the other candidates who followed the rules, but also to the electoral process.
There's no campaigning in the Memorial Union. Period. Those were the rules.
Thomas Ahrens, the other presidential candidate, was quoted in today's article as saying that he was going to challenge the poll results whether or not the disqualification would have occurred.
Both the committee and the candidates have put the Rules and Ethics Committee in a very tough spot. The students have spoken through the polls, but would the same results have occurred if Feinberg and Klos hadn't done the extra advertising in the union? How can Rules and Ethics possibly remedy the situation fairly?
It's not known for sure whether the situation can be fixed without stepping on someone's toes or angering some of the student population. Rules and Ethics should at least provide another opportunity for students to vote if it decides to overturn the Elections Committee's decision to disqualify Feinberg and Klos. For concerned senators and students, it would level the playing field for the candidates and ensure that the election was still in the hands of the student population. If ever there was a need for a re-vote, it is now. Both sides are responsible for what took place last night, and both sides must work together to ultimately accomplish what last night's elections obviously could not: electing a president and a vice president of the student body the democratic way.
Not only that, but the Elections Committee, which is responsible for upholding those clearly-written rules, broke its own bylaws by not posting the numerical results of the elections and referenda directly after the close of the polls. There's a reason why the results are posted under the heading, "Unofficial: Subject to Challenge." Whether Josh Feinberg and Eric Klos were disqualified or not, the election results should've been posted directly after the polls closed. Now the running mates are choosing to appeal their disqualification and they're using the committee's violation of the bylaws as ammunition for their case.
But those same running mates clearly broke the campaigning rules. While the student supporters may have been out of their hands, the poster, the pens and the T-shirts were clear violations of the rules. Going the extra mile in that regard is not only disrespectful to the other candidates who followed the rules, but also to the electoral process.
There's no campaigning in the Memorial Union. Period. Those were the rules.
Thomas Ahrens, the other presidential candidate, was quoted in today's article as saying that he was going to challenge the poll results whether or not the disqualification would have occurred.
Both the committee and the candidates have put the Rules and Ethics Committee in a very tough spot. The students have spoken through the polls, but would the same results have occurred if Feinberg and Klos hadn't done the extra advertising in the union? How can Rules and Ethics possibly remedy the situation fairly?
It's not known for sure whether the situation can be fixed without stepping on someone's toes or angering some of the student population. Rules and Ethics should at least provide another opportunity for students to vote if it decides to overturn the Elections Committee's decision to disqualify Feinberg and Klos. For concerned senators and students, it would level the playing field for the candidates and ensure that the election was still in the hands of the student population. If ever there was a need for a re-vote, it is now. Both sides are responsible for what took place last night, and both sides must work together to ultimately accomplish what last night's elections obviously could not: electing a president and a vice president of the student body the democratic way.