[1222] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: A humble opinion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sam Johnson)
Thu Mar 14 17:37:36 2002
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Message-ID: <20020314212358.8688.qmail@web13901.mail.yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 13:23:58 -0800
Reply-To: baddog@alum.mit.edu
From: Sam Johnson <badcanine@YAHOO.COM>
To: MIT-Talk@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20020314144218.00a57ba0@hesiod>
Damn thats a long letter.
Here's three equalities.
Hooking up people before the election = vote buying (this includes
handing out candy and baking people cookies - thats just 'acceptable'
vote buying).
Hooking up people after the election if you win = patronage.
the current UA = sore losers.
-Sam
--- Justin Nelson <jmnelson@MIT.EDU> wrote:
> 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
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage
http://sports.yahoo.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
