[1237] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
UAP cross-comments
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Beland)
Thu Mar 14 21:57:42 2002
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <1016160678.9612.47.camel@press-your-luck>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 18:51:06 -0800
From: Christopher Beland <beland@MIT.EDU>
To: MIT-Talk@MIT.EDU
Some of you may have missed these choice comments due to the To: header
uncertainty principle.
---
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 08:10:06 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael R. Folkert" <ginsu@MIT.EDU>
To: thunder <nimkee@MIT.EDU>
cc: <helenlee@MIT.EDU>, <ua-elect@MIT.EDU>, <ua-candidates@MIT.EDU>,
<ua-announce@MIT.EDU>, <ua-judboard@MIT.EDU>, <mit-tech@MIT.EDU>,
<ua-all@MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: rhett disqualified, read below
Hmm.
There's a huge difference between promising a tax rebate to EVERYONE
after you're elected, or holding an event that ANYONE can attend, than
promising a benefit that ONLY goes to those who specifically vote for
you.
I'm sure as heck not a Republican, but I benefited from that tax rebate
just like everyone else (or at least everyone else who got gouged
sufficiently in the first place).
It would be nice to see a historical breakdown of what the discretionary
funds were used for - I would hope that they are used for emergencies that
come up during the course of the presidency or as seed money for
interesting projects that may not be funded otherwise; it seems
completely irresponsible to take such a fund and throw it away before you
even start your term. It also seems pointless to earmark it for a social
or something for which funding is easily obtainable otherwise.
---
To: "Michael R. Folkert" <ginsu@MIT.EDU>
cc: thunder <nimkee@MIT.EDU>, <helenlee@MIT.EDU>, <ua-elect@MIT.EDU>,
<ua-candidates@MIT.EDU>, <ua-announce@MIT.EDU>, <ua-judboard@MIT.EDU>,
<mit-tech@MIT.EDU>, <ua-all@MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: rhett disqualified, read below
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 10:20:04 EST
From: Grace Rose Kessenich <gracek@MIT.EDU>
> There's a huge difference between promising a tax rebate to EVERYONE
> after you're elected, or holding an event that ANYONE can attend, than
> promising a benefit that ONLY goes to those who specifically vote for
> you.
>
But there's no way that he can know that someone voted for him. If he had
access to the file that says who has voted and who has not (so no one double
votes), then he could see which people *possibly* voted for him and compare it
with his list. So basically anyone who votes -- NOT necessarily for him -- and
tells him so is getting $10. I think this increases voter participation, which
the election commission wants.
Grace
---
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 02:23:08 -0500
To: Malima I Wolf <miwolf@MIT.EDU>, Helen Lee <helenlee@MIT.EDU>
From: Vibhav Rangarajan <vbranga@MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Creighton/Brar ticket decision
Cc: ua-elect@MIT.EDU, ua-candidates@MIT.EDU, ua-all@MIT.EDU,
ua-announce@MIT.EDU, ua-judboard@MIT.EDU
I would just like to say that I wouldn't have voted for Creighton/Brar even
if they paid me $100.
In fact, my friend Enzo said he wouldn't vote for them if they gave him a
Benzo to roll in.
Bribing for votes is not only unethical, but also pathetic.
Vibhav Shyam Rangarajan: Chiiiillin
---
From: "Michael R. Folkert" <ginsu@MIT.EDU>
To: Grace Rose Kessenich <gracek@MIT.EDU>
cc: <helenlee@MIT.EDU>, <ua-elect@MIT.EDU>, <ua-candidates@MIT.EDU>,
<ua-announce@MIT.EDU>, <ua-judboard@MIT.EDU>, <ua-all@MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: rhett disqualified, read below
In-Reply-To: <200203141520.KAA01105@dimethyl-sulfoxide.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.30L.0203141617160.22948-100000@radical.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Hmm...
So, offering to buy votes is okay because he can't really tell who voted
for him, and he'll just pay whomever comes by?
In other words, their campaign is based on a promise that they have
absolutely no way of making good on.
That's fantastic! And it's encouraging MIT students to lie for a quick 10
bucks.
I hope every MIT undergraduate participates in the voting process. I also
hope that the incentive of $10 is not what drives them to do so. I never
served on the UA, but I know that they do a lot of real work on this
campus, and if you think this place is a little rough now, give a little
thought as to how bad it could be without them. Like Victoria said, if
there's something you want the UA to do, send them a note and say it!
I've heard a lot of comments about hwo the UA sucks, but not much on how
to improve it. Somebody wants a revolution, make up a manifesto. 99% of
the time it seems like there's not a real issue or issues being discussed.
Enough from me - have fun.
Mike
> But there's no way that he can know that someone voted for him. If he had
> access to the file that says who has voted and who has not (so no one double
> votes), then he could see which people *possibly* voted for him and compare it
> with his list. So basically anyone who votes -- NOT necessarily for him -- and
> tells him so is getting $10. I think this increases voter participation, which
> the election commission wants.
>
> Grace
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
