I’m back! But by the time this edition of The Poly is printed, I will officially have a replacement after the most ridiculously petty and negative Grand Marshal election in modern history. According to The Poly archives, only the race of 1960 was as bitter or as dirty. During those days, the GM was almost supremely controlled by fraternities that formed alliances under political parties. You can imagine what the outcome was when fraternities went head to head. But today, with the greek community almost solely behind one candidate, how is it that we have experienced such a rough race? Allow me to pontificate.
The cultural movement of the ’70s brought new changes to the campus that were dually reflected in student politics. The “show me a good time and I’ll vote for you” philosophy of GM Week faded. No longer was the campus drowned in cheap beer with strip teasers and leaflets dropped by planes. Many greek traditions died and independents gained more of an equal footing in campus politics. This forced a transformation in the election process that revolved more around the candidates than their political juntas.
Though spectacularism was dead, some years still saw fields of ten GM candidates or more. But throughout most of these campaigns, the races were civil. Back then the golden rule of respect and decency still meant something. Yet throughout most of the nineties and early 21st century, we have seen the competition dwindle to a two-party race on most occasions. This was usually due to a clear field of leaders or a line of succession within the Student Senate. This year was an anomaly. No one stood out among the contenders from the very start, leaving a leadership vacuum that everyone felt entitled to. We watched a pool of eight prospective candidates dwindle to six to four to two. But even with each successive trimming of the field, no candidate was able to rise above the fray of politics as a leader adored by the entire campus.
After numerous hand recounts, the results of GM Week were literally inconclusive with a six-vote margin of error, meaning that if the final results are within that margin, no winner can be determined. I watched both candidates win hand recounts by less than six votes and each time the Student Senate’s Rules and Elections Committee refined its accuracy, the tallies became even closer. In my search for precedent, I’ve only been able to uncover one race that was closer: the 1981 GM race between Peter Traversy and Jeff Boyer. Traversy won by three votes, with an unacceptable margin of error of two votes. The evening of the announcement the margin of error was three votes which didn’t permit a winner to be announced until later when an allegation of a student voting twice was dismissed, lowering the unacceptable margin to two votes.
It is important for the entire campus community to understand how thorough and fair RNE has been. Just 12 years ago an organization called the Election and Empowerment Team—which replaced RNE for a time due to a GM’s vendetta against its rigorous rules for a fair election—was charged with election improprieties. E&E proved to be a failure before RNE was reestablished, so the newly elected GM ought to heed my advice and leave RNE alone. It transcends politics, and the lessons of a corrupt E&E ought to make my case crystal clear.
As far as the maliciousness of this race is concerned, I can only cite precedent from the 1992 PU race that didn’t bode well for either party. I just hope future candidates will learn from the useless attacks we’ve witnessed this year and bury that trend. There is no place for this kind of behavior, not now, not ever. It appears some people have forgotten that we have one duty in student government: to take care of our peers, not to malign one another.
I wish the 37th Student Senate and the 140th Grand Marshal, Zack Freeman, the best of luck. Always remember: integrity first, service before self, excellence in all we do.
