Another Associated Students election has come, but not completely left us yet.
Similar to past semesters, last week’s A.S. election has left more for us to think about in addition to why we should vote in the first place. This semester’s election has resulted in a glaring mistake, unethical campaign practices and a run-off election.
Even though this time around the malfunction in the election wasn’t due to technical errors, I almost long for the computer glitches of the past in place of what we have to deal with this semester.
During the first day of voting, an omission was found that could not go overlooked. The name of one of the candidates for the senate seat for the Mike Curb College of Arts, Media and Communications (AMC), Julio Palacol, was no where to be found on the ballot.
At the time, the Elections Committee said a special election would be held for the AMC candidates, or they would be added to the ballot if a run-off election were needed.
Hopefully not to many people’s surprise, a run-off election is needed after all. As of the final count, Abel Pacheco and Conor Lansdale of the Students for Change slate won most of the votes, totaling to 1,223. The A-Team, with candidates Andrew Collard and Arthur Keukazian, came in second with 730 votes.
The reason for the run-off was due to the Students for Change not earning 50 percent plus one of the votes to secure a win. With a difference of 493 votes, it still wasn’t enough and we all must endure another week of A.S. elections because either the campaigning to increase the number of students voting wasn’t well executed, or maybe students don’t care as much for the formation of their student government as the candidates would like them to.
Even though the total number of voters increased this semester from 1,700 of last fall to over 2,700 this time around, it seems there weren’t enough votes for one slate to prevail over the other three.
First there was the tie between Adam Haverstock and current A.S. President Miguel Segura last spring, and now there were not enough votes between four slates to secure a win? No matter how many times I have this discussion, all the factors involved with the results of the election leave me skeptical.
One possible explanation could be even though it’s always great for students to be presented with options for who they want to lead their student government, maybe having four slates to choose from were two too many.
Regardless of what the actual reason or reasons are for why the Students for Change slate couldn’t secure a majority of the votes, now more money needs to be allocated for another election. This is money that could have been spent on more vital activities that could benefit CSUN students.
The last debacle of this semester’s A.S. election was the unethical campaign practices of two of the leading slates. Yesterday morning, the Elections Committee heard complaints about e-mails sent to CSUN students on behalf of the A-Team encouraging them to vote and numerous ethical violations on behalf of the Students for Change slate.
The complaint towards the A-Team said the slate used the e-mails for commercial purposes, and in their case, to gain more votes against their opponents. In addition, the question of how they accessed the student’s e-mails arose.
The complaint against the Students for Change slate focused on the slate’s distribution of stickers without informing students they had to remove them before entering buildings on campus, the placement of the stickers in areas on campus with high student traffic, and presidential candidate Abel Pacheco’s violation of the Code on Associated Students Elections with him wearing a campaign t-shirt on the first day of the election to the Senate meeting.
Even though the deliberation resulted in not allowing the Students for Change slate to use stickers for campaigning and the A-Team sending e-mails encouraging students to vote, it still doesn’t take away from the fact that the two leading slates violated the rules. What does that say about their ethics and the lengths they would go to in order to secure their agendas?
The question I pose to all the people that were involved in the A.S. election is: When are we going to have an election where things run as close to smoothly as possible? As a student, I don’t think I’m asking for much. Seeing the elections consistently having problems and now feature candidates who don’t play by the rules, my skepticism for the entire process has risen to a disheartening level.
