(I hope it's painfully obvious to everyone that I did NOT title this column... I'm guessing my editor is to blame for this gem.)
THE RIGHT ANGLE: Don't fall prey to the partisan monster - Opinions
Partisanship is ruining the world. There, I said it.
Some people may think that's an odd statement coming from me. After all, this is the token conservative column, and I am the president of the College Republicans. But I also think there is a fine line between party loyalty and stupidity.
I started really thinking about it this weekend while I was scanning through the UNCG Livejournal community once again. A student had posted an advertisement asking students to vote for him in the recent SGA Senate elections. Another student immediately responded, asking where they could find information about all the candidates, including their "political status".
I'm not sure why, but that immediately annoyed me. I could be wrong, but I just don't think SGA is going to be taking a vote to do away with Social Security any time soon. What possible advantage could knowing a student's political affiliation have? Should we have all students running for SGA offices list their preferred political party next to their name? Do we need to start offering students a "straight ticket" voting option?
What goes on inside partisan group meetings is one thing, but it's another thing completely to bring it out into the open. There are actually members of other campus organizations that refuse to talk to me, or openly glare at me around campus, simply because I am a well-known College Republican.
Ironically enough, on the few occasions that someone from a more liberal group will actually TALK to me, they end up telling me that I'm not quite the "monster" everyone claims I am (and yes, that term has been used). These same people are often shocked to find that I can talk about things other than politics, and that even while discussing politics, I'm very laid-back about it all. This is because I don't take my politics to extremes. I like to see both sides of an issue and decide for myself what's right. Anyone that reads this column knows that I would not be considered a "good" Republican by any means. After all, I don't let the Republican Party tell me what I do and don't believe in. And I would certainly never refuse to be friendly to someone just because of their political preference.
And honestly, we're in college. Yes, this is supposed to be preparing us for the real world, but everything doesn't have to be a life or death situation. I personally enjoy debating politics with someone, and then going out for a beer with that same person afterwards. So what if I think we should privatize Social Security and they think the government should handle everything? Doesn't mean we can't talk about something much more important later, like baseball, or who's going to win American Idol this season.
I know I seem to be contradicting myself, because I've always wanted people to be more politically aware, but aware doesn't necessarily mean "blindly loyal". In last November's elections, I voted for a couple Democrats as well as several Libertarians. Actually being aware of the candidates and the issues can help you make informed decisions - straight-ticket voting just elects a party platform, not necessarily a good politician.
Stereotypes are just all-around bad, whether you attach them to races, genders, or members of a political party. When it all comes down to it, does it really matter what my voter registration card says I am? After all, it's far more probable I'll dislike you for being a Boston Red Sox fan than for being a Democrat.
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Democracy at UNCG: SGA to Campus -- "We Lied. Your Vote Really Doesn't Matter."
Democracy at UNCG - Opinions
A lot has happened since my last published column. I must say, the absence of a campus paper has been frustrating. Even the Spartan News, which started last semester as an "alternative" news source, shunned the chance to control the UNCG news scene; since the Carolinian's last edition in November, the Spartan News has updated only once and with only one article.
Without the Carolinian, the more motivated students were forced to find alternate means of campus information. I found SGA to be handy for learning about upcoming campus events and such. I have wanted to be active in SGA since I was a freshman but was turned off by fellow students who warned me of what a snooze fest it was. But apparently, I'll do anything to get out of doing homework.
Although it may not be the normal college student's idea of a good time, it was anything but boring. Three hours of bickering over money and arguing the mechanics of the English language later, I was completely convinced that democracy doesn't stand a chance in this country. At least they accomplished something.
Aside from lengthy meetings, irrelevant arguments, and destroying my faith in humanity, I saw the basic necessity of SGA. I found it almost heart-warming to see so many students working together (sometimes) to insure the success of the entire university.
All those warm fuzzies went away, however, when election time rolled around. I was shocked to discover, in this large group of motivated, ambitious students, that there was only one person running for president and one person running for vice-president. So much for my vision of students actually caring about the future of our campus.
If I sound bitter, you'll have to excuse me. You see, I was nominated for SGA President, and then told I could not run because I had not attended enough meetings. Others were turned away because of their low GPA. This experience leads me to believe that the lack of candidates does not stem completely from indifference, but from the pointless regulations placed upon interested students.
I didn't really mind not being able to run until I realized that no one was running against Daphne Villanueva. I attended the "debate" in which Daphne told us why we should elect her for president, as if we had a choice in the matter. She and Sandy Dempsey, the vice-presidential candidate, answered basic questions on the campus parking situation, financial aid, and relating with students. I sat in the audience, not necessarily disagreeing with either of them, but yearning for a differing opinion.
For example, Daphne doesn't see a problem with the parking situation on campus. Apparently, the fact that there aren't enough spaces to accommodate everyone with a parking pass is not as important as making sure all of our freshmen are able to have passes. As a rising senior who lives on campus and is sick of having to park on the street when I come home at night, I don't see the problem with the freshman lottery that was standard when I first came to UNCG. At the very least, we should go back to having "freshman passes" so those of us with seniority don't have to park somewhere near the edge of the earth to make sure we don't get a ticket.
I would have loved to see an opposing view on the parking situation at the debate, and I'm sure plenty of other students would agree with me. The closest thing we received to contrasting ideas were Sandy's answers as to why she would make a good vice-president. Before the debate was over, I was fairly certain that Sandy was more qualified for the position of president than Daphne was, but my opinion (as well as my vote) didn't count for much.
The real losers in this situation are not those of us who were not allowed to run because we had not attended a certain number of meetings but the entire student body. How can we expect students to participate in national and statewide elections when we won't even allow them to see the benefits of democracy in their own university?
The week before "elections", signs went up all over the university urging students to vote. Daphne and Sandy plastered posters all over the EUC. Out of sheer curiosity, I logged on to the voting page, and found that there was not even a place to write in a different candidate.
What really gets to me is the fact that the people who come up with the rules for who can and cannot run are probably the same people who were stressing the importance of voting in the SGA elections. I'm sure they created the rules in order to keep people in charge who were "fit" for the job, but shouldn't they let the students decide who is appropriate? Shouldn't they allow the students to decide if a candidate's low GPA or low attendance record makes them unfit for the office?
We're supposed to be teaching students that the ability to elect our leaders is an important right that they should take advantage of, but instead, we're teaching them apathy. I say let the students decide who should represent them. I demand a recount; you should too.
A lot has happened since my last published column. I must say, the absence of a campus paper has been frustrating. Even the Spartan News, which started last semester as an "alternative" news source, shunned the chance to control the UNCG news scene; since the Carolinian's last edition in November, the Spartan News has updated only once and with only one article.
Without the Carolinian, the more motivated students were forced to find alternate means of campus information. I found SGA to be handy for learning about upcoming campus events and such. I have wanted to be active in SGA since I was a freshman but was turned off by fellow students who warned me of what a snooze fest it was. But apparently, I'll do anything to get out of doing homework.
Although it may not be the normal college student's idea of a good time, it was anything but boring. Three hours of bickering over money and arguing the mechanics of the English language later, I was completely convinced that democracy doesn't stand a chance in this country. At least they accomplished something.
Aside from lengthy meetings, irrelevant arguments, and destroying my faith in humanity, I saw the basic necessity of SGA. I found it almost heart-warming to see so many students working together (sometimes) to insure the success of the entire university.
All those warm fuzzies went away, however, when election time rolled around. I was shocked to discover, in this large group of motivated, ambitious students, that there was only one person running for president and one person running for vice-president. So much for my vision of students actually caring about the future of our campus.
If I sound bitter, you'll have to excuse me. You see, I was nominated for SGA President, and then told I could not run because I had not attended enough meetings. Others were turned away because of their low GPA. This experience leads me to believe that the lack of candidates does not stem completely from indifference, but from the pointless regulations placed upon interested students.
I didn't really mind not being able to run until I realized that no one was running against Daphne Villanueva. I attended the "debate" in which Daphne told us why we should elect her for president, as if we had a choice in the matter. She and Sandy Dempsey, the vice-presidential candidate, answered basic questions on the campus parking situation, financial aid, and relating with students. I sat in the audience, not necessarily disagreeing with either of them, but yearning for a differing opinion.
For example, Daphne doesn't see a problem with the parking situation on campus. Apparently, the fact that there aren't enough spaces to accommodate everyone with a parking pass is not as important as making sure all of our freshmen are able to have passes. As a rising senior who lives on campus and is sick of having to park on the street when I come home at night, I don't see the problem with the freshman lottery that was standard when I first came to UNCG. At the very least, we should go back to having "freshman passes" so those of us with seniority don't have to park somewhere near the edge of the earth to make sure we don't get a ticket.
I would have loved to see an opposing view on the parking situation at the debate, and I'm sure plenty of other students would agree with me. The closest thing we received to contrasting ideas were Sandy's answers as to why she would make a good vice-president. Before the debate was over, I was fairly certain that Sandy was more qualified for the position of president than Daphne was, but my opinion (as well as my vote) didn't count for much.
The real losers in this situation are not those of us who were not allowed to run because we had not attended a certain number of meetings but the entire student body. How can we expect students to participate in national and statewide elections when we won't even allow them to see the benefits of democracy in their own university?
The week before "elections", signs went up all over the university urging students to vote. Daphne and Sandy plastered posters all over the EUC. Out of sheer curiosity, I logged on to the voting page, and found that there was not even a place to write in a different candidate.
What really gets to me is the fact that the people who come up with the rules for who can and cannot run are probably the same people who were stressing the importance of voting in the SGA elections. I'm sure they created the rules in order to keep people in charge who were "fit" for the job, but shouldn't they let the students decide who is appropriate? Shouldn't they allow the students to decide if a candidate's low GPA or low attendance record makes them unfit for the office?
We're supposed to be teaching students that the ability to elect our leaders is an important right that they should take advantage of, but instead, we're teaching them apathy. I say let the students decide who should represent them. I demand a recount; you should too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
