[1187] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: The Creighton/Brar scandal
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Katherine H. Allen)
Thu Mar 14 13:01:35 2002
Message-ID: <200203141645.LAA15913@dodecahedron.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 11:45:58 -0500
From: "Katherine H. Allen" <katallen@MIT.EDU>
To: MIT-Talk@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 14 Mar 2002 08:12:10 PST."
<F216wVN7miR9Odutox70001eca7@hotmail.com>
> Anyone who could possibly be disappointed in the UA's
> decision to ban Creighton and Brar needs to go back to
> eighth grade and learn what a democracy is.
democracy
2: a political system governed by the people or their
representatives
The point of democracy is for the people to be represented. We make this happen
through elections: people vote for an advocate to be their voice in matters
of government. By condemning Creighton and Brar *before* the end of the
election, the Election Board exerted undue influence on this process
and is threatening to deny voters their opportunity to be represented as they choose. This, as much as any campaign violations of promises made, has
undermined the spirit of the election.
> Having said that, it is possible that Creighton and Brar
> may be legally liable for the money they promised
> *anyway*, regardless of whether they win or are
> disqualified.
No, they aren't. 1) Campaign promises are not legally binding. (See US presidential elections for examples).
2) They promised to give the first 500 voters each $10, not everyone, and
specifically stated that this would only happen if they won.
They even encouraged people to cast their second-choice vote for
other candidates so that voters would have their opinion heard even if
Creighton and Brar lost the election or were disqualified for some reason.
> counting address. (I couldn't stop laughing when I saw
> Crieghton's message that he didn't think most people
> would cheat. Surely he couldn't be appealing to
> people's sense of ethics!)
Yes, he could and was. Representative government is a system based on trust.
Rhett obviously understands that, and was acting in good faith.
>
> Note to UA - the Bush fund needs to be reviewed. The
> next person to try this might be a little more
> sophisticated and refrain from announcing it publicly.
Perhaps. The alumnus/alumna who donated the money intended it to be
for the use of the UA president. The UA president feels generous?
It doesn't appear that there is anything stopping him from giving it away...
> You lost the case
There was no case. The UA commissioner took action hastily and inappropriately
by acting to remove a write-in candidate from the election *before* the voting
ended. There *will* be a case, and the correct action *at that time* may be
to disqualify Crieghton and Brar, but it may not be an issue: if they lose,
despite their inethical campaign promises, the integrity of the election
process is upheld, and the people have their voices heard.
I wish good luck to all the candidates, and hope that people will choose to
vote for the candidate they think will best represent them.
Kat Allen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Documentation on the use of the mailing lists mit-talk, all-talk,
mit-news, housing-talk, and the mit-talk Zephyr class is available at:
http://web.mit.edu/institvte/talk/
