[1245] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: Three more cents...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Schneider)
Fri Mar 15 16:21:42 2002
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020315152334.049af678@po12.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:45:48 -0500
From: Scott Schneider <scottsch@ALUM.MIT.EDU>
To: MIT-Talk@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20020315143455.01f39af0@po10.mit.edu>
The UA and its officers have a limited amount of time and money to spend,
and try to spend them fairly. But "fair" means different things to
different people. You think fair should mean equitable, in the interest of
student activities, trying to make sure the mandatory dining plan includes
free mints, etc. We -- the people who think the UA is complacent and
spineless -- think your idea of fairness isn't worth a damn because our
views are ignored or, at best, co-opted.
You believe Rhett's campaign is unfair because it is so explicitly
democratic. You say the $10 promise is corrupt because it is too precisely
targeted. Rhett is playing your game without any pretenses, and that's why
you say he is *obviously* corrupt, and there *clearly* should be a rule for
this unexpected case, but you can't defend your arguments further than that.
Scott
Chris Rezek wrote:
>Penny #1: Paying for votes is bribery. Publicly offering to pay for votes
>is announcing your guilt and eliminates the need for additional proof to
>zero. Knowing Rhett's experience and views I would have been happy to see
>him run a legal campaign (such as last year's) but unfortunately this year
>he chose to use a method repugnant to the ideas of popular democracy and
>the UA Election Commission recognized that. I hope the Judicial Review
>Board does the same and confirms the disqualification while following its
>policies and procedures fully to ensure that there are no complaints about
>process.
>
>The difference between offering tax cuts or free food and offering
>specific compensation for votes is that the latter is a specific quid pro
>quo that applies only people who have voted (or claim to have voted) for a
>specific candidate. If Bush promises a tax cut for the rich - all the
>rich would get it, even the ones who didn't vote for him. If the UA holds
>an open forum on dining with food - all students who attend get it, even
>the ones who didn't even vote at all in the previous election. When you
>are offering money for votes is it clearly bribery and clearly corrupt,
>regardless of the quality of verification. If a UAP candidate was
>offering to give every undergraduate $5 or $10 or even $100 (as has
>happened before) that would not be bribery because there would be no
>connection between who you vote for and what you get. Bribery has no
>place in popular elections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
