We often complain of petty politics that occur in Washington and at our state Capitol, but how about the goings-on of our very own student government on the Downtown campus?
Yes, it seems this campus is breeding another generation of politicians who care more about carrying out procedures than policies. The elections on the Downtown campus this year echo last year’s absurdities.
The results of last week’s elections were delayed on Thursday after several complaints were filed. On Friday, we found out that the only candidate who actually signed up in time to appear on the ballot was disqualified and the election results were thrown out completely. Late Sunday night the student government met to reconsider the disqualifications and special elections later this week.
Two write-in candidates — who apparently decided to run once there was only one name on the ballot — were supposed to face off in a special election of their own, though the details may change.
But what violations were so bad that candidate Joseph Grossman was originally disqualified?
For one, Grossman failed to read the Downtown government’s elections code before a meeting at which he was appealing another violation. Another was his decision to hand out candy at a campaign event.
A Downtown student emailed the elections committee and was concerned over whether the candy was considered bribery — though we hope you’d stop considering candy a bribe after first grade. The fatal flaw for the Grossman ticket was failing to get approval to use lollipops as campaign material. “Grossman/Bakardjiev Campaign has violated this code since they did not receive approval of candy as a campaign material,” read the election complaint form on Downtown student government’s website.
This bungled election process comes just one year after an extended battle over violations last year. Andres Cano, who is on this year’s ticket as well, was disqualified after receiving too many violations even though he received the most votes.
What put Cano over the top?
A Facebook message endorsing a candidate for the student senate incorrectly identified the candidate’s school. This message was deemed inappropriate because the election committee had not given it prior approval.
A high-stakes drama ensued that involved senators threatening to filibuster measures that weren’t considered essential and the disqualified ticket refusing to concede.
As the student elections came around this year, we hoped things would go smoothly. We understand that things go wrong and that serious violations need to be addressed, but what we’ve heard so far is hard to justify.
While the Downtown student government is still just a few years old, it has the benefit of looking to other student governments for an example.
If Grossman’s most serious violations involve reading and lollipops, his case deserves to be revisited, as should the elections code. The problems that have occurred for two years in a row contribute to the low participation in student government Downtown and hurt the legitimacy of an organization that could more effectively use its time helping students.
