2008 Woodie Awards
Write-in Protest
Chris Van Vechten
Issue date: 2/23/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 3 next >
As some of you may have heard, on Feb. 14, 2007, Trail columnist Walid Zafar and I announced our intention to run together as write-in candidates for the executive offices of ASUPS. Walid, an orphaned Afghan native from Kabul, has thus become UPS' first Muslim candidate ever to run for the office of vice president. Together we may have even set a national precedent by participating in what may be the first collegiate election that has featured a Jew and a Muslim running on the same ticket: the V&Z campaign.
Yet we have neither set out to break barriers, nor even to actually win the election. Rather, we campaign to expose what we consider to be ASUPS' perversion of democracy - a slew of laws specifically designed to marginalize and discriminate against write-in candidates.
Write-in candidates are both officially illegal and fully acceptable according to the 2007 ASUPS Election Packet. Section I.G claims they are allowed to "run," while Vice President Chelsea Howes' cover sheet states they are "forbidden" to "campaign." In short, write-ins are effectively forced to comply with all the requirements that are necessary for a candidate to have his/her name on the ballot, without receiving any of the benefits: much less their name on the ballot.
These requirements include: collecting 70 student signatures for each candidate; refrain from any form of campaigning (including through Facebook) until approved by ASUPS; and, most disturbing of all, every would-be candidate must first interview with (and be approved by) an ASUPS officer, in order for his/her votes to be counted. (See section I.B. of the 2007 Election Packet.) In other words, ASUPS' can legally - though certainly not morally - disqualify any candidate they dislike.
There are also harsh spending limits coupled with many insane regulations against publicity - including a clause in section I.G which implies that write-in candidates can only campaign as write-ins after the deadline for names on the ballot has expired (which is a mere 24 hours before the polls open).
Yet we have neither set out to break barriers, nor even to actually win the election. Rather, we campaign to expose what we consider to be ASUPS' perversion of democracy - a slew of laws specifically designed to marginalize and discriminate against write-in candidates.
Write-in candidates are both officially illegal and fully acceptable according to the 2007 ASUPS Election Packet. Section I.G claims they are allowed to "run," while Vice President Chelsea Howes' cover sheet states they are "forbidden" to "campaign." In short, write-ins are effectively forced to comply with all the requirements that are necessary for a candidate to have his/her name on the ballot, without receiving any of the benefits: much less their name on the ballot.
These requirements include: collecting 70 student signatures for each candidate; refrain from any form of campaigning (including through Facebook) until approved by ASUPS; and, most disturbing of all, every would-be candidate must first interview with (and be approved by) an ASUPS officer, in order for his/her votes to be counted. (See section I.B. of the 2007 Election Packet.) In other words, ASUPS' can legally - though certainly not morally - disqualify any candidate they dislike.
There are also harsh spending limits coupled with many insane regulations against publicity - including a clause in section I.G which implies that write-in candidates can only campaign as write-ins after the deadline for names on the ballot has expired (which is a mere 24 hours before the polls open).
Be the first to comment on this story