After reading about elections in last week’s issue of The Polytechnic, I felt it necessary to clarify a few things for anyone interested. Unless you have been on the Rules and Elections Committee through a GM Week, it is hard to imagine the amount of time and effort that goes into running one election, let alone three. This is one of those scenarios where the committee did its job as well as it could have, and the outcome still may have warranted judicial intervention.

It would have been completely inappropriate for RNE to declare a new Grand Marshal based on our final election results. The committee made the right decision based on the information it had available. Although RNE felt it was unlikely that five consecutive ballots were lost after being cast, we had no evidence to prove this. It was not a matter of simply being cautious or giving something the benefit of the doubt; it was the only decision that was appropriate for us to make. As a committee, we decided to be upfront about the missing ballots from the very beginning. Anyone can speculate as to what happened to those ballots, but it does not change the fact that we could not account for them at the end of the day. Please trust me when I say that a more thorough investigation could not have been conducted, and I do not think for a second that RNE could have done better, given the circumstances. It may be hard to believe, but I may just know what I’m talking about. The Judicial Board has more flexibility in evaluating the scenario, and I am confident that its members will make an appropriate decision.

To say that turnout during the runoff election was indicative of students being fed up with the process is extremely inaccurate. As much as I hate to say it, most students are only willing to vote if they get a free mug. The turnout during the period of time we did have the mugs, however, was far greater than anything I had ever seen. We ended the day with a vote total greater than that of the primary election held the previous week, one in which no student voting could really have been fed up with voting. Any turnout above 2,000 is at least average, and considering the fact that we had no incentive to offer after 10 am, it was well above any of our expectations.

To sit back and try to evaluate flaws in the process is useless, in my opinion. Until the equipment and software we use become as reliable as the committee members are themselves, there will always be problems. This year’s RNE, like those before it, did its best with the cards it was dealt. I hope that you will trust the next RNE to do the same.

Kim Conway