. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nap Time!!!

Thursday, May 01, 2008
I guess that's one way of putting it

Let's see:
This elections season also saw improved communication between all party leaders, resulting in no reported violation allegations from both CalSERVE and Student Action.
"Improved communication" is an odd choice of phrase. I'd imagine if you were a person who didn't think very highly of major parties getting together and agreeing to allow each other to break the rules, it doesn't seem like an improvement at all.
Gupta and Jain shared similar views that disqualifying candidates for unintentional violations of elections bylaws was unnecessary unless the violation created an unfair advantage.
It's an interesting view, and might be plausible if we were talking about a pair of third parties or some such. Instead, though, we're talking about the major parties, who have the power to change the by-laws as appropriate. So if they really believed in limiting violations as they describe, they could easily actually change the rules to reflect this limitation. Instead, they prefer to function through no-file agreements, so that third parties can still be subject to campaign restrictions at the discretion of those with the manpower to find violations. (See Tregub, Igor)

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 5/01/2008 02:55:00 PM #
Comments (0)
. . .
Comments: Post a Comment

. . .