Although the results have not been finalized as of yet, the Kirkwood emerged victorious in the initial IUSA 2008 election with 3,286 votes. Big Red was a close second with 3,133 votes, while the INdiana ticket was a distance third with only 1,256 of the 7,834 votes.
Reactions to Kirkwood’s apparent victory have been extremely polarized. Many praise the ticket for its down-to-earth, student-aimed platform and its unwavering determination in the face of a serious violation by one of its members. Others have ridiculed the results, which they say doom the IUSA to yet another meaningless and ineffective year.
After reading about the parties, student opinions, and seeing the campaigning take place on campus, here are several thoughts on the election:
1. On-campus mass campaigning is crucial. During elections, I walked by both Big Red booths and Kirkwood booths stationed at heavy traffic areas. Whether it was in front of Ballantine Hall or in the lobby of the SRSC, people in campaign attire approached me relentlessly with the stock “Have you voted for the IUSA elections yet?” This occurred when I walked into the SRSC, only seconds later after I went and bought a drink at the concession stand, and again when I was leaving. Hey, I already had to walk by you once to get in, why would I stop on the way out? Interestingly, there was no talk about the merits of each party’s platform, it was simply “Have you voted?...Oh you’re going to vote tonight? Well you could do it now at our computer (with us standing over your shoulder).” If I had actually gone to the computer, I wouldn’t have been surprised if the only option was to “Vote for _______.” Regardless of the apparent bias, these practices were probably a huge key to success for Kirkwood and Big Red, and a point of failure for INdiana, who was noticeably absent.
2. Students care about their own immediate desires, not the big picture. Looking at the platforms of each party, it’s obvious that Kirkwood had the ticket with the most immediate appeal to students, with the sports center renovations, wireless internet in residence halls, and the sustainability plan. While the face value of these promises appealed to many students, other quality initiatives seemed to be overlooked. The major points of the other parties, including returning scholarships to the school, improving textbook purchases, and meal point rollover benefit parents and a small amount of students in more cases than it helps the other students. While these improvements undoubtedly would have meant much more to cash-poor students trying to make ends meet, the fact is that many more students rely on their parents to pay for their tuition, books, meal points, etc., so a revamped SRSC or wireless internet in Teter are much more attractive.
3. Ethics don’t mean much when it comes to voting for a party. Regardless of whether or not the Kirkwood ticket knew of Congressional candidate Adam Pozza’s forwarding of the Big Red campaign e-mails to Eric Gibson (who is still on the ticket), it’s hard to believe that the Kirkwood ticket didn’t gain a competitive advantage in the election thanks to this blatant violation. In addition, Kirkwood and Big Red both sent out unsolicited mass e-mails to students’ accounts, a violation of the election code, and of which I was an unfortunate recipient. Perhaps these types of unethical activities (supplying fraternities with beer in exchange for votes is a rumored strategy) are commonplace in jockeying for control of IUSA, but it only continues to tarnish the IUSA’s reputation and makes a mockery of what should be a fair, democratic election.
If Kirkwood officially wins the election and has a less than successful tenure, who is at fault, the students who didn’t show up to vote, the students who made uneducated votes, or the parties that garnered these empty votes? In my opinion, everyone is at fault, and until a qualified party can win this election in the right way, the IUSA will continue to suffer as an organization.
Linear Mode
