SA campaign flaws must be addressed
March 30, 1988
Remember to vote today in the Student Association executive elections, if you didn’t yesterday. There is some validity to the opinion that those who do not cast ballots have no right to cast stones when decisions are made that they disagree with.
This year’s elections have been criticized on many fronts, including in this newspaper. A quick review might be in order.
A past member of the SA, whose opinion counts for a great deal because of her long and impressive record with the SA, has expressed grave concern over the lack of experience of some individuals running in this year’s elections. The need for fresh ideas is certainly strong, but it does not outweigh the need for in-depth understanding of the nature, purposes and operations of the SA.
There have been candidates this year who have never even been to an SA senate or committee meeting, but believe they know what the problem areas of the SA are and that they can solve them. Reading The Northern Star and talking to friends who are senators simply is not enough to make a candidate well-informed on the important issues.
There have also been candidates who spent most of their time calling other candidates names, rather than expounding upon their own qualifications. While it is possible some candidates have hidden agendas and motives, it would have been nice if candidates who pointed this out had gone on and actually expressed what their own agendas were.
One candidate has fallen victim to the improper actions of campaign personnel—hopefully, this will not taint the elections. It can serve no purpose for students to vote on the basis of this occurrence—all candidates should be evaluated on the basis of their qualifications and ideas, so as to elect the best leadership possible for the SA. Let the elections reflect intelligent choice-making, not reactions.
The Northern Star Editorial Board, which is frequently accused of being “sexist,” has been amazed by the appearance of an item in one candidate’s campaign platform referring to a portion of that candidate’s anatomy. Even more amazing is the lack of any outcry from those who usually criticize such things. Yes, it’s obviously a joke—but no one is laughing.
This year has seen its share of election problems, but there is plenty of time for the new executives to work toward solving them for next year—and they should.