The Tech - Online EditionMIT's oldest and largest
newspaper & the first
newspaper published
on the web
Boston Weather: 24.0°F | Fair

... In Mismanaged UA Elections

With all the confusion over this year's Undergraduate Association elections, many students don't even know that tomorrow is election day - much less who is running or where to vote. The mismanagement of elections reflects poorly on those that run elections, and of the UA as a whole. The new UA leadership will have to work hard to recover from this year's election nightmare.

The effects of poor organization were widespread: the debate was poorly run, publicized, and attended; class council forums were unpublicized; and the election commission was unable to organize the annual election supplement in The Tech, leaving students without candidate profiles and platforms.

The confusion began with an amendment to the election code made in February that lowered candidate signature requirements. The UA Judicial Review Board chair overturned this amendment, but UA President Vijay P. Sankaran '95 vetoed the measure, leaving the dates and requirements for elections uncertain. As we have said before, regardless of the merits of the amendment, the UA should not have changed the election code a month before elections.

Whether the blame for this mismanagement lies with the UA election commission, UA Council, or other UA officials is unclear and irrelevant. Even if the UA does nothing else - or everything badly - it must run elections fairly and successfully. Otherwise, its mandate as a student government will wear thin.

Students will not be surprised with low turnout in tomorrow's elections. Poor management and organization has probably alienated those few voters who somehow manage to find out about the elections. Hopefully, the new UA leadership elected tomorrow will not repeat this year's mistakes.