Political contests are fun to watch, especially when candidates and their campaign crews show they are ready to get down and dirty. Tweaking rules can be expected in student government elections – just as the temptation to cheat is inevitably present in local, state and national races.
The Democratic Party is still weighing how to deal with rules violations by the states of Michigan and Florida. Both states held primaries too early and the party decided to strip away their delegates. Sen. Barack Obama wants to split the delegates and Sen. Hillary Clinton claims she should get them all because she won in the rule-defying races.
The purpose of the political lottery is that if you’re in it, you want to win it, even if victory involves cutting a corner or two.
In college competitions, Cal State Long Beach’s annual Associated Students, Inc. battle included, shenanigans are to be expected. It’s in the belly of the beast that lawn signs will disappear, somebody will whisper their favorite’s name in a chemistry class, or a candidate will say, “Vote for me,” a couple of inches too close to a residence hall.
Even students who don’t care about student governance can’t resist a little chicanery. Maybe they want the lawn sign because the candidate is cute. Perhaps they want to use it as a dart board in their club room.
Monitoring campaign activities typically involves one party tattling on the other, and they need someone to snitch to.
Having an election rules committee is important. It keeps the fight from turning into a bloody cage match. No candidates worth their salt take their eyes off opponents and their supporters, or they could miss possible dirty campaign tricks like overspending, improper campaigning or outright sabotage.
A rules committee gives the candidates a means to air their suspicions over possible wrongdoing, and hope that the repercussions visited upon their opponent, after being found guilty, will give them a consequential advantage over the running field.
Some of the recent campaign allegations were worth a giggle or two. Others, as the violating candidates learned, were more serious and punishable offenses.
It’s difficult to discern how the committee spankings shake out in a campus election, though. Although most of the charges were investigated and dismissed, some resulted in a temporary loss of campaign privileges for at least one presidential candidate.
The eventual winner, incoming ASI President Erin Swetland, had to face the rules committee for campaign no-no’s. Swetland was deemed “guilty” for overbooking tables and campaigning on the Psych Quad Walkway. If she would have fought a lesser “Vote for Erin” battle prior to the charges, breaking the rules could have been costly.
Fortunately for Swetland, voters saw something in her they didn’t see in the other presidential hopefuls, so the punishment wasn’t extremely damaging.
But even the least of reprimands can humble a candidate. Nobody likes to be publicly chastised, no matter how insignificant the embarrassment might seem to others.
This election seemed to run pretty smoothly. Most of the racers put out an eager, optimistic and positive effort, unlike their national counterparts. It was so engaging to observe, we even restrained one editor – who cares little for politics or rules – from getting drunk and voting seven times to test the new online voting system.
We insisted that even the Daily Forty-Niner isn’t above following rules. After all, the editor could have been suspended, expelled or worse.
Whether an opponent’s picture gets burned in effigy at some Greek association’s beach bonfire, or is turned into Halloween masks by a student group a specific candidate pissed off, rules are rules.
Bending or breaking rules is part of the game. So are the penalties. It’s part of what makes politics fun to watch.
