The Badger Herald

OPINION & EDITORIAL

If at first you don’t succeed…

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:

A security fee-for-all (December 11, 2007)
Farewell, Chancellor (December 10, 2007)
$$FC (December 6, 2007)
In a bind (December 5, 2007)
Entitlement Town (December 4, 2007)

by Badger Herald Editorial Board

Wednesday, November 1, 2006

Last week, the Associated Students of Madison Student Judiciary put their seal of approval on the fall elections, including the passage of both the Living Wage and Student Union Initiative referendums. Though only 6.59 percent of the student body showed up to the polls, ASM OK'd the elections as fair and accurate — essentially raising student-segregated fees for 30 years to fund SUI and demanding monies from some unknown source to ensure student workers make $10.23 per hour.

And after two botched elections in the spring that were to decide the same two referendums, we thought ASM had finally pulled off an election the organization itself was happy with.

We spoke too soon.

Late last week, six ASM members filed a lawsuit against the Student Election Commission, alleging SUI misled student voters about both the referendum's advisory nature and what would happen if it were denied. The Student Labor Action Coalition followed suit, filing a complaint calling for the results of the election to be nullified entirely.

We applaud the efforts of students who have called the results of the election into question, especially those involved with ASM — it's about time someone within the organization recognized that students deserved better this fall.

Between being inaccessible to much of the University of Wisconsin student body and provoking a barrage of segregated fee-funded advertising advocating egregious increases in segregated fees, the elections were inadequate and unfair. ASM and DoIT should have been working full time over the past several months to ensure online elections were a viable option this fall, so any student with an Internet connection — no matter where or what time of day — could cast a vote. Meanwhile, no one thought to question an over-funded, one-sided campaign that played on students' fears that the Memorial Union might someday float away into Lake Mendota if not for a dramatic increase in segregated fees.

Next time, ASM and SEC need to take a closer look at the way they run elections before more segregated fees go to waste.

Referendums should be highly scrutinized to ensure both their legality and their plausibility in passage through the chancellor's office. Additionally, elections must be accessible to all students — not just those on campus between noon and 6 p.m. over the course of two days. Finally, both in advertising and on the ballot itself, referendums must be presented in a balanced, truthful way to guarantee students understand in full the weight of their votes.

And then, perhaps, the fifth time will be the charm.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (November 1, 2006 @ 3:47am):

Students should get off of their lazy, apathetic asses and go to the polls instead of just clicking buttons for fun...and the Badger Herald should get off of its snobby, narrow-minded high-horse and advocate positive and realistic solutions instead of just saying that ASM sucks

Anonymous (November 1, 2006 @ 6:48am):

DO YOUR HOMEWORK BADGERHERALD.

you are all idiots...there has been other HUGE decisions made with similar voter turn out on paper ballots.

Anonymous (November 1, 2006 @ 7:47am):

So, because no one stepped up to present an anti-SUI campaign, we are saying SUI was at fault? There are not guidelines set on spending, therefore this should be something that is looked at for next semester. But why should SUI be punished, based on a non-existent rule?

Let's say someone or some group had presented the alternative side, lacked the same amount of funds as SUI, well, then maybe this fuss would begin to make sense.

You can't change the rules in the middle of the game.

Also, SLAC states they want a new election based on inaccessibility, not because they disagree with the SUI... Seriously?! Doubt it. I just don't see how the group can gripe when they were shouting last semester about having 3 elections...

-E.

I voted "no" on both the initiatives.

Anonymous (November 1, 2006 @ 8:38am):

ASM has been working since last spring to get an electonic voting system - if you want it done CORRECTLY it takes time. So what do you guys want? Do you want a half-assed electronic system filled with glitches or do you want to just suck it up and vote at the polls (like in every other real election...) and patiently wait for a new, error-free electronic system? You can't have the best of both worlds, so it's time you give the folks at ASM the benefit of the doubt.

Anonymous (November 1, 2006 @ 9:00am):

Maybe those of you at the Herald should o your job and actually report on election issues instead of just giving opinions. In the BIG PEOPLES world news organizations sponsor debates. In your tiny little world you spend more time to giving your opinion then actually reporting the news.

Anonymous (November 1, 2006 @ 10:34am):

There was a referendum?!

Anonymous (November 1, 2006 @ 12:14pm):

Badger Herald, I'm love your paper, but I'm sick of you reporting so negatively about ASM. ASM leaders work extremely hard - could you write an article about the good work they are doing (in areas outside of elections or segregated fees of course)? There is plenty good work to report about: Dylan Rath, Gestina Sewell, Hannah Buck, Renee Mechanic, David Lapidus, Sam Ziesemer, Christie Penn - interns, ASM Council, volunteers, Finance Committee, - these people do great things for student rights and issues.

Anonymous (November 1, 2006 @ 12:51pm):

"provoking a barrage of segregated fee-funded advertising advocating egregious increases in segregated fees"

I really hope you are not talking about SUI in this sentance. We all know that no seg fee money went to that campain. And while we are at it someone should mention that prior to this referendum very little of the union's operating budget came from seg fees - even all the student programming (with exception of DLS) is seg fee free.

Anonymous (November 1, 2006 @ 2:29pm):

BadgerHerald, please. It was widely publicized that SUI had no seg fee funding.

In what way should referendums be "highly-scrutinized" and their plausibility come into question with anyone but voters?

Are you saying that when students pursue and receive thousands of signatures to put an initiative on a ballot, in accordance with election rules (as was done on both initiatives here), that there should be some other body that reviews them?

If you'd like to see change in student government and more effective democracy, implying authoritarian principles probably isn't the way to go.