Elections. Can they ever be fair? The President of the United States is president because on a certain date certain voters went to their assigned precincts and placed a vote. There were rumors that in Florida voters were discouraged from voting by either being verbally or physically obstructed. Ballots were disqualified in districts that traditionally voted a certain way, etc. But at the end, ONE president was selected. There was no second election held.

What would have happened if it had? Would more people have voted? Would they have encouraged their friends to vote? Would they have volunteered to drive those unable to drive so they can vote? Would this affect the results? Absolutely!

In Dallas last spring at Highland Park Middle School some teachers did not relay to students that ballots had to be cast in pencil.

Those ballots not in pencil were discarded. Despite the fact that it was a close race, the officers for student council were elected. There was no re-election! What would have happened if it had? Would students who did not vote originally vote and/or change their vote? Would they encourage their friends to vote differently? Would this affect the results? Absolutely!

Yet, here at SMU despite the knowledge that it was “two” off-campus computers that had the irregularity, these votes were not eliminated. Instead there is a re-vote. Did this alter the results of the original slate? Absolutely!

Despite efforts of “no campaigning,” it did occur, maybe not directly from the candidates but from supporters. People who were not involved in the original voting deadline voted this time. Conversely, those who voted last time did not do so this time.

And again, people become apathetic and/or changed their mind. All these are reasons why there should never be a re-election.

Re-voting is an ugly process. It is an admission that something went wrong with an internal elective system. It should therefore be used as selectively as possible. But in this election, re-voting was unnecessarily employed to overturn the original intent of voters, and keep a rightful winner out of office.

Although this “leader” continues to serve the student government at SMU and continues to respect the integrity of the decision board, this event offers an opportunity to question a process and not challenging the results of this second election, not wanting to rock the boat or to cause hassles for the elections board or for the other candidates are not sufficient justification for annulling one’s right to elective office.

This was SMU’s opportunity to shine as a truly inclusive and equitable institution showcasing a Hispanic to be elected as president of a first-year class. Instead SMU has opted for a questionable and an untypical process, overturning the original intent of voters.

Perhaps SMU could have opted at having co-positions for the elected office where fraud and error has occurred similar to the dual titled conferred on the Miss North Carolina title recently. I hope in the future SMU looks deeper into a situation and the ramifications it causes.

Miriam Schober
RLSH accountant