MSA: Overhaul Election Code

Recent irregularities uncovered by the Review indicate the stupendous inability of MSA to police its election campaigns. Certain candidates made a mockery of the election rules, committing serious violations without facing appropriate sanctions. These violations demonstrate the need for MSA to reform its Election Code for prospective candidates. Specifically, MSA needs to address the following issues:

1. Multiple offenses generate only a single demerit. Essentially, the election board displayed remarkable leniency to candidates or parties who committed the same violation numerous times. Specifically, as currently enforced, a candidate receives the same number of demerits irrespective as to whether he committed the offense once, or hundreds of times. The DAAP used this loophole with maximum efficiency, placing perhaps thousands of illegal posters around campus, yet receiving only a single demerit for one member of the party. As such, they managed to effectively promote their party, at the expense of candidates who diligently observed the assigned rules.

2. Virtually all offenses, no matter the spirit or malice involved, earn only a single demerit. However, an obvious disparity exists between offenses designed to prevent defacement of University property (such as no posting on paint), and violations committed to spite or disrespect one’s opponents, such as defacing or covering another candidate’s posters. Such violations, considering the climate in which they must be committed, deserve an assignment of at least three demerits, in the opinion of the Review.

3. A severe time lag exists between reporting and notification on the status of reported violations. Certain violations were reported which the election board insists it could not find. Apparently, one poster in question seemed to have a cloaking device, possibly of Romulan origin, activated whenever an election board member approached to investigate. Yet, rather than notify the recorder of the violation immediately, to permit him/her to photograph or otherwise physically document the allegation, they instead waited days before responding — if they responded at all, by which time the violation had been corrected. This permitted election violators a leeway of several days’ worth of illegal publicity to correct their “mistakes.” Yet, instead of simply requesting the observer’s assistance immediately to find the violation, the election board had the gall to insinuate, without proof, that multiple observers were lying.

4. It appears the willingness of election board members to record violations can be graphed as an inverse function of the number of violations earned by a candidate. Thus, although board members seemed perfectly willing to give the first or second demerit, they expressed severe reluctance on granting the fifth, final, and disqualifying demerit. In the opinion of the Review, a violation is a violation is a violation. To have a degrading scale of enforcement invites corruption and utter disrespect for the rules other candidates must follow. Under such a system, as we ask in our front-page story, “Is a fair election possible?”

Of course, we recognize the possibilities for fraud and for framing opposing candidates by falsely reporting allegations. However, the best way to correct such shenanigans is to demand that the election board investigate alleged violations promptly, and notify observers of violations immediately if more proof is required. In an election campaign that lasts a week, a few days’ delay is unacceptable. It should be noted that, had the election board properly enforced reported violations, SP Candidate Kym Stewart would have been disqualified, and DAAP Candidate Courtney Rae Rawls would have won the seat instead. This modification would have altered the partisian balance of MSA, giving the DAAP a plurality over the SP in the recent elections. Interestingly, two members of the election board responsible for investigating alleged violations were members of the SP, but none came from the DAAP. Although we deplore the agenda of the DAAP, we cannot endorse electoral incompetence or malevolence to their detriment.

Overall, it is apparent that MSA’s current election code needs major revision. Expectations for all parties involved need to be clarified. Hopefully, MSA will act upon our recommendations expeditiously and judiciously; if so, perhaps we can avoid a repeat of the fiasco of Fall 1998. MR

This article was published in the 20 January 1999 edition of The Michigan Review (Volume 17, Number 6).
For questions or comments, see the Contact Information page.