[1202] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
A humble opinion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Justin Nelson)
Thu Mar 14 16:04:07 2002
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20020314144218.00a57ba0@hesiod>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 15:59:06 -0500
From: Justin Nelson <jmnelson@MIT.EDU>
To: MIT-Talk@MIT.EDU
OK, so i've been reading all of these and I guess it's time I form an
opinion and send it in. It seems like the thing to do.
First, I'm no legal expert, but there seems to be a very, very key word
that EVERYONE has forgotten to think about:
precedence.
If Rhett and Victor are allowed to go through with this and win in this
manner, then what happens next year? and then the next? Would it be safe to
assume that every candidate must offer this money in order to even have a
chance to win? (turning this is into nothing more than a low stakes march
madness tournament bracket with slightly better odds for the person
choosing who to vote for) Or even worse, what if someone wants an edge now
b/c everyone is offering ten dollars? So now someone with daddy's money
offers $20 to every vote. Great, now it's just a matter of who has the most
money. (I realize that US elections can be reduced to something rather
similar, but being a slightly smaller election, we can afford to be just a
tad more idealistic). It was mentioned that $10 isn't all that much, but
where do you draw the line? The issue here is buying votes and if it's
allowed this time, nothing can stop it from escalating. Of course, this is
in response to those who have said that if they want $10, then that's their
choice and therefore their voice on this election and taking away that is
undemocratic.
But before you start flaming me, understand that I do see a clear
distinction between those people on the list who has voiced an opinion
corresponding to the above ideas, and those who have stood on the idea that
there is in fact a larger principle here. The principle is that the UA is
worthless and this is proving that a large portion of undergrads believe
this to be true. It has also been said that by doing this, Rhett/Victor
have proven that they are willing to 'think outside the box', offer
'creative solutions', and basically aren't afraid of busting balls to get
something done. The principle is that b/c people are willing to sell their
vote for $10, then it's apparent that apathy abounds which furthers the
idea that the UA is deemed worthless in the eyes of many. Can Rhett/Victor
do something about this and make it an organization which stands out? That
point is completely irrelevant here. No one against the vote-buying is
saying that they would make horrible officers once in. If enough people
thought they were great candidates, why did they need to buy votes?
Let's present the last paragraph in a slightly different manner and in
doing so, perhaps peruse a bit deeper. It seems that I'm getting the
notion that a lot of people on the list are saying that they didn't vote
for Rhett/Victor b/c they were going to get $10 but rather b/c Rhett/Victor
were willing to carry out this plan. That by doing this they somehow show
legitimacy to being great candidates. Whether this idea is held by the
majority or the minority of those who voted, no one can tell (we'll get
back to this shortly). But if this is the case, then I ask, why did you
want the $10? Why didn't people just vote for him and not collect? (and
some did, I'm sure and yes, now people are coming out and saying that
they'll give the money back, but now it's even hard to tell whether you're
doing this b/c of the above reason or just so that you can screw the system
or if you're just making a statement about the ineptness of the UA) But by
accepting the money, you've made grey your motivation for voting for them
and in doing so, you've left the UA little choice but to null your vote b/c
as far as they see, the $10 is all that motivated you and that leads back
up to my original paragraph. If the number of votes gotten by them minus
the number of people who want $10 is great enough to win the election, give
them the office b/c that will be the number of people who voted for
Rhett/Victor on a principle and not on a payroll even if the principle was
no more than the fact that they were willing to buy votes and create this
debate in the first place. If you want your vote counted, you can't accept
the money.
Now the point has also been made that giving out money to those who vote
for you is no different than handing out candy in lobby 10. Let's fix this
analogy. Handing out candy in lobby 10 is no different than handing out
money in lobby 10. Better. See, when candidates are handing out candy,
you are not binding yourself to vote for them (and if anyone's ever voted
for someone b/c they gave them candy, please let me know). You are given
candy (or tax cuts if they get in) regardless of whether or not you
actually vote for them not strictly b/c you voted for them. The candy is
merely a method of getting attention. Once attention is gotten, then they
can present their platform which is what motivates the vote. The
only-if-you-vote-for-me clause skips the middle step and therefore
bypassing the point of them even getting into office.
Let's make distinct another debate. It's the idea that noone believes that
the UA will do anything in office or that any one person in office will
affect their lives and that's why the $10-for-your-vote is working. This
enters an entirely different debate about how the UA should operate and
what it should do but for the love of god, don't confuse this debate with
whether or not someone should be allowed to buy votes. They are separate
issues entirely. Argue away, really, but don't claim this to be a good
reason for someone to be able to buy votes.
Did the UA break some basic election procedure by jumping in during the
middle of the election with this disqualification? This I leave up to
debate and a distinct debate at that.
Indirectly, Rhett/Victor has sparked some great debate and have rocked the
boat a good deal and they did this by harnessing one of the greatest powers
in any election: apathy. (I will admit I could care less who's in office
and I don't think they affect my life at all which isn't saying they don't
do anything but only that I need little done) The irony is that by trying
to harness apathy, they might've abollished just a little bit of it....at
least until the next problem set is due.
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
