In the point/counter-point featured in the Spectator’s opinion section, two groups of engineers address the apparently reoccurring issue of whether members of the e-board should be voted in internally.
I’m going to have to side with Roy and his crew on this one. I mean, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. It seems like the e-board is doing fine the way it is and by opening the voting system to all engineers, you only expose the next e-board voting to the effects of popularis nincompoopus. Although, this is not to say that popular people are not capable of doing a good job, which is obviously the stereotype Roy and friends want to subscribe to, since they neglect giving any similar caveat to that I’ve just given. And in reference to George Bush’s seat in office:
“Bottom line—popularity contests don’t yield the best leaders.”
Yes, well that is rather a shitty bottom line you have there considering almost every frickin’ national election is some form of popularity contest and not every elected representative turns out to be like George Bush.
The underlying issue here of course is that ESC wants the best to work on the e-board and personally, who better to know who’s best than ESC themselves? I mean for those worthy candidates, whoever they may be, who are interested on working with the e-board, wouldn’t they have already had some contact with ESC? It’s highly likely that the ESC knows the people who are interested in the ESC simply by virtue of the fact that they are the ESC. If ya know what I’m sayin’.
The article written by Shearman and co. is written in mere rebuttal style to the arguments critics of the open voting system raise. Rather than positing their own views to argue and win a point, Sherman and co. decide to win through truth-by-contradiction. Not a very compelling argument considering they want to:
“urge current council members to carefully consider our points when voting on whether to add direct elections to their constitution.”
I can think of a certain first-year who would agree that the people we need to make the school work are those who belong to the student subset, Group Two–you know, the doers.
Whoa!! Did you read the other side’s article? I guess you missed their points, hidden so sneakily amongst the text.
- “students are ultimately shut out of the elections.”
- “The engineering student body is just as qualified as ESC to judge the competency of candidates who have non-student council leadership experience.”
- “an outside candidate could reinterpret a position.”
- “There are ways that ESC can maintain its integrity while still listening to the students’ voices.”
- “Elections could become more visible to the student body, generating more interest in both the candidates and the organization.”
And yeah, pshhh, rebuttals, who needs them anyway? Better to just scream your own points without addressing the other guy’s.
I guess “not ever [sic]” writer can bothered to care. Oh and the kid’s name is Shearman. Sorry SEAS, but your system IS broke. Go fix it!
Said Kas,
On February 29, 2008 at 6:43 pm:
- “students are ultimately shut out of the elections.”
No shit? Isn’t that the point?
- “The engineering student body is just as qualified as ESC to judge the competency of candidates who have non-student council leadership experience.”
Oh really? Because the entire student body is in contact with the people who are genuinely interested in ESC? Please. The people who are genuinely interested in ESC would have taken the initiative to get to KNOW ESC and how it functions.
- “an outside candidate could reinterpret a position.”
Platitude. Any person in the world could reinterpret any position. What kind of an argument is that?
- “There are ways that ESC can maintain its integrity while still listening to the students’ voices.”
This could be true, and I apologize for not raising this point.
- “Elections could become more visible to the student body, generating more interest in both the candidates and the organization.”
This too is a decent point but lacks any real substance because it relies on “could”. Hypotheticals don’t quite cut it as well as some real evidence. However, in all fairness, I don’t know if the current open voting system for the normal ESC has generated a lot of interest in candidates and/or organization.
“I guess “not ever [sic]” writer can [be] bothered to care.” Yikes, bad move there. Would hate to nit-pick.
I think it would have been more effective if with each rebuttal, they emerged with a clear alternative point (not saying that they don’t make any points) rather than simply finding ways to refute the opposition’s claims.
Said Vesal Yazdi,
On February 29, 2008 at 8:15 pm:
gonna have to go with Vesal on this one.
“The people who are genuinely interested in ESC would have taken the initiative to get to KNOW ESC and how it functions.”
I agree — the people who should vote are the people who know what’s going on. The people who know the candidates rather than those who want to pull the lever for its own sake. Blindly backing an idea without fully understanding it is about as thick as you can get.
And that’s why we’re all here at Columbia: to not challenge ourselves or learn anything. Just to be a parrot. Polly wants a cracker! Polly votes Obama!
Said Sarah Cohler,
On February 29, 2008 at 9:40 pm: