Tom Braslavsky, a freshman and Hatchet columnist, conducts an experiment to see just how hard it would have been to get signatures to earn a spot on the SA election ballot.
A signature requirement does not necessarily keep out joke candidates, but it definitely keeps out lazy candidates. If you are just running as a joke, but are also a committed candidate, you can easily get all the necessary signatures over a few days. However, a signature requirement provides a deterrent to potential candidates who do not actually want to work for their place on the ballot alongside serious candidates.
As author of the bill that eliminated signature requirements, I really must object to this whole article.
You set out to collect signatures, but you don’t do it in the way that most signatures are collected: in dorms. Dorms are the fastest and easiest way to get signatures, and I have absolutely no doubt that you would have gotten all the signatures you needed had you spent your days in Thurston rather than wandering aimlessly around public locations.
Finally, this article misses the entire point of why I set out to abolish the signature requirements: In order to write this article, you had to annoy over 100 students, disrupt their meals, and waste their time. No matter what the benefits of a signature requirement might be (and I do not concede that there are any), this is a cost too high.
Also, it would be illegal for a real candidate to talk about their platform while collecting signatures, because that would be defined as “campaigning before the designated campaign period”.
Logan…why would anyone sign a candidates form without knowing their platform without knowing it? This is a common law, even found in the US government, local and national elections. It is not considered “campaigning before the designated campaign period” unless they were pushing their platform on the signers and handing out fliers or otherwise campaigning. Your point is moot and I agree with Braslavsky.
If we’re going to abolish everything that annoys the students, i guess the SA will have to be the next thing to go…
A. No one cares about signatures, people sign those things blindly. If Stalin came around with one of those he would get signatures just as fast as any other candidate.
B. No one cares about platforms. Half of the platforms are impossible (ending mandatory spending dollars, 40 acres and a mule, ect.) and the other half are not accomplished due to the SA’s incompetence.
C. No one cares about the SA. The online election received under a 40% turnout putting it on par with a congressional midterm election. The only difference between the two is the midterm elections have a thinned out crowd due to nessicary preregistration to vote, having to schlep all the way to the voting booth, and the people elected have a chance of doing something during their term.
During this entire campaign cycle I am yet to hear one positive comment in relation to the SA. I have heard it to be incompetent, irrelevant, in addition to several four letter words. So in conclusion, I think its great to argue about important issues like getting signatures to run, and how you are not allowed to preemptively campaign and I look forward to watching the SA’s brand of democracy inaction (note: that is intentionally one word).
@ alum.
It’s not like I made the law. It’s true. You’re not allowed to do anything that might advance your candidacy, which includes talking about issues, until the campaign period.
@ Logan
You focus upon when you can or cannot discuss this mock issues of the SA, but really if someone asked you what you were campaigning for when you are getting their signature according to you candidates should just stand there awkwardly and say that they stand for nothing (which is truer in reality).
So with such a “law” in place the gathering of signatures amounts to who can find the most apathetic, mindless, sheeple (sheep plus people just sound it out I guess) to throw away their John Handcock’s.
While I agree with you that the signatures are just a waste of many different people’s lives you are forgetting the fact that the SA itself is also just wasting many more people’s lives.
@ DTOM:
Couldn’t agree more. Why waste students time on an organization they couldn’t care less about.
The reason why the SA is not believed in is because the average student speaks like you. People bitch that the Sa does nothing but maybe if the students showed some support, worked together with the SA you may see some change. The SA is created and stands as the voice of the people and if the student body were to show a little spine, stand together on a problem wiht a single voice (the SA) things will get done. Negative attitudes make things worthless. Join together and you may see a change. When I was there, I voted every time in the hopes of seeing some changes. Petitions and mass support will bring change. Stop individually bitching about J Street, and find a unified voice and you will see change. The University is a company and we are their clients. If the clients stop purchasing because of one problem, the company will change that product. Think about it.
@ Alum
I would like to agree with you on how student support could change the direction of the SA however in all my time at GW I have neither heard, seen, or smelled any way to interact with the SA. Aside from the fact of not knowing who is a member, because realistically who remembers any of those hundred names from the campaign after a week, they poorly advertise how to contact themselves in order to complain about their inaction. In addition, shouting, petitions, and mass support only work if the members have to fear re-election like in a real senate. For example, this year’s president the people would have no power over him seeing as he will never be running again.
However I do agree with your metaphor of a company and buyers however I disagree with who is the company. I think the best way to cause change is to quit buying from the SA in order to make them change the product from hot air to progress.