I really wish I had made this post at least a week ago, but I didn’t really see this coming unless last night, when it was too late…
Elections aren’t about winning or losing. They’re not about the people; they’re about the chapter. Everyone needs to do their part to ensure that the chapter is strong and healthy.
I hate that all the competition suddenly dropped from this race. Competitive elections are the lifeblood of a healthy democracy, and a healthy chapter. The way to ensure that the chapter stays strong is to ensure that everyone truly does have a voice in how our programs are run, and for that to happen, we need an honest and open environment where people feel free and safe to share their ideas. Uncontested offices mean that the candidates need not put thought into their programs and objectives, and that the chapter is not well-informed about what the program will be like.
That said, sometimes people get so caught up in winning or at least being on the winning side that they forget the big picture. The only thing I hate more than uncontested offices at elections is whole slates running together at elections. Brother X’s side versus Brother Y’s side is not going to help the chapter. ExComm is supposed to represent the best interests of the whole chapter by working with everyone, for everyone. That can’t happen if there are vote-mongers running whisper or smear campaigns.
Whichever side of tightrope you fall to, I hope that you can put aside your feelings — positive or negative — for the individuals, and put the programs first.
i second that motion.
This is the first time ever I see so many historian pairs running. More than any other offices!! Make me proud, picture whores!!
It seems like it’s going to be a short election. I am a little sad
I thought about what you said, and I realized that putting personal feelings aside and only looking at programs is unrealistic. Ideally, yes, we would make our decisions based on the programs presented, but what if the candidate is known for not carrying out plans? What if the candidate has a previous history of flaking out? Would you trust the candidate to deliver a perfectly designed program when you suspect that it could be all talk and no walk? That doesn’t sound very safe to me when one is simply making the decision without prior knowledge or without considering the ability of such candidate.
Sure you could say that we should always give someone a chance, but I personally feel that this person has had many chances of proving him/herself worthy of our vote from the moment we met, so if someone’s trying to all of a sudden become very active towards election, don’t you think there could be some ulterior motives?
peggy, what if you know both candidates and think they both have equal moral character and demonstrated leadership and initiative? then really, it’s just down to the speech. it was hard putting my personal feelings aside for jadel’s elections, since one of the candidates was my big, but it had to be done, and i made sure not to write down my vote until after all the speeches and Q&A were complete.
Tim, I agree with you. Yes, if you believe all the teams have what it takes to do a great job (which is most cases), then we should definitely look at the program to make our decision. I guess what I am saying is that you cannot solely look at the program without knowing the candidates. And your action of making sure not to write down your vote until the end, and setting personal feelings aside is very respectable and a very intelligent thing to do.
I think it’s hard to have absolutely no prejudice, since the experience we have with each candidate is different from one another. But my point is not to judge by one’s personal feelings towards every candidate; I meant it as we should see if the candidates have proven themselves capable of handling such offices, so it’s not all about the program, but the program and the candidates combined.