OUR VIEW: Platforms are more impressive than iPads

In Tuesday night’s ASUSU Executive Council meeting, a bill was discussed that will once again change an aspect of election week policies. This particular policy is one we’ve been waiting for.

With the constant growth and convenience of technology, candidates spend a lot of their time chasing down potential voters with the voting website pulled up and ready to go on their handy computers, iPads and smartphones. With this new bill, candidates can have this equipment while campaigning, but cannot approach students with it in their hands. They cannot bribe voters to come to their computers. So electronics can be present, but not shoved down students’ throats.

Campaigning like leeches may be effective, but is it ethical? Maybe not.

When a candidate hands a student a fancy piece of machinery they are automatically going to feel pressure to vote for that person without knowing their platforms. With a candidate standing right there, looking over a student’s shoulder, it’s too awkward to turn the candidate’s plea down. Some voters will then ask candidates for advice on who else to vote for. ASUSU Executive Council and college senator candidates have the tendency to tell voters to vote for those they want to be in office with for the year. These people are usually their buddies.

Another tactic is to go door to door with these electronic things in hand. They go into students’ apartments, flirt a bit and get votes from entire apartments and dorms. In fact, two members of The Statesman staff ran for office in the past and said they feel not having direct access to this technology was a detriment to the outcome of their campaign.

Unfortunately, campus elections tend to be about the flashy and impressive nature of candidates’ campaigns. While yes, the elections committee sets rules about how much money can be spent, many candidates try to spend as little as possible. They are in fact still poor college students. Then come the ones who do have money. The $400 limit for campaigning seems minimal, and they go all out.

The candidates giving out the best hot chocolate or the best coupons, or those forcing the technology down throats of voters, are the ones who win. Students don’t often listen to what the candidates have to say or the goals they hope to accomplish while in office. It is all about the attention-grabbing effects, the free food and the persistence that makes us all want to avoid the strip of sidewalk plagued by eager candidates.

Supposedly, this “no computers” policy was going to be enforced during last year’s elections, but no one did anything about it, so they were used anyway. Hopefully, this year will be different, and may the best candidate win.