Thin line between scrutiny, embarrasment

There is no doubt in our mind: the fraudulent election on Sept. 18 and 19 wronged the voters of the first-year class. There is also no doubt in our minds that the Student Senate Membership Committee led the Student Senate in correcting the wrongdoings.

To call the Senate’s reactions a “disservice” to the first-year class is contradictory to what actually occurred. When an individual(s) took it upon himself to forge votes by a margin of 15 percent, the Student Senate reacted quickly, and more importantly fairly, in calling for a new election.

But let’s diverge to major presumptions of the oh-so knowledgeable Editorial Board.

The claim: Releasing the names of those who benefited from the fraudulent election would have been the just thing to do.

Wrong.

The membership committee and the university webmaster could not conclude that the there was any connection between the candidates who received the illicit votes and those who cast them. In other words, if the membership committee had made such a connection, it would have had to irrationally assume that all candidates who received the votes took part in a massive conspiracy.

Not likely. Not logical. But just in case you, for one illogical reason or another, think the names should have been released, regardless of connection to the actual crime committed, ponder this: if you read that Candidate X received 90 illegally cast votes (regardless of the fact that he may not have anything to do with the casting of those votes) would you vote for him? The membership committee decided not to release these names because it would have undoubtedly and unfairly affected the results of the new election.

The Claim: The membership committee should have released the vote totals in the elections.

Wrong again.

First of all, when was the last time that the results of the first-year class elections were released … can’t remember … hmmm? Well you probably can’t remember because they haven’t been released in the past several years. Why, you ask? Good question.

Well, we don’t know about The Daily Campus, but the Student Senate is not in the business of embarrassment. News flash: 40 first-years ran in the first-year elections.

Now imagine: Little Sammy is new on campus, trying to make friends, attempting to get involved in student activities, and, oh yeah, he got six votes in the first-year elections. Hmmm, is this something Sammy wants his peers to know? Will this public knowledge boost Sammy’s self esteem level?

There is no doubt that a candidate exposes himself to public scrutiny when he takes on an election. But this begs the question: Just how much public scrutiny does a candidate expose himself to?

It is our belief that defeat is enough public scrutiny. What good comes out of releasing vote totals anyway? Perhaps one could argue that public awareness is the result.

This is true, but what more does the public need to be aware of? They know who won, they know who represents them, what else is there? Muckraking? Controversy? We’ve had enough, thank you. For the record: we are not hiding votes. Any candidate of the first-year elections is more than welcome to know his vote total.

And finally let’s make one thing clear and concise.

The Student Senate has nothing but the utmost respect for the students of SMU and the votes they cast.

The membership committee is dedicated to making sure that elections are conducted fairly and accurately. Let us assure you that the Student Senate Membership Committee has done just that.

Thin line between scrutiny, embarrasment