COLUMN: Spicing up elections with smear campaigns
It is the Wednesday after Spring Break and that can only mean a couple of things.
One, the Aggies are playing Hawaii in the Spectrum. I’ve got two things to say about that: one, go Aggies and two, I hope we sweep the entire NIT, so we can finally celebrate a well-deserved season properly … and burn NCAA selection committee effigies in front of the Alamodome for the Final Four in San Antonio (OK, I’ll probably do that anyway).
Two, it might mean that you have not yet returned from your Spring Break trip. If you haven’t, then allow me to help. When you are trying to get back into the United States from Tijuana, under no circumstances should you follow the signs that point you toward San Diego. They will only take you deeper into Mexico (quite possibly a personal experience).
Three, you are now realizing all of the assignments you were supposed to do during the break and you are close to a mental breakdown. I can offer no comfort here other than, at least you enjoyed yourself during the break … ignorance was indeed bliss.
Four, yesterday was probably Tuesday.
Five, you are in the same classes you were in on Monday.
Six … OK, I guess being the Wednesday after Spring Break can mean more than a couple of things, but my point is that, unless you are dead or unaware of even the slightest of USU activities, then you will have known that we are smack dab in the middle of the ASUSU elections.
Now, I don’t have anything against ASUSU elections per se, in fact, various times I have participated actively in campaigning for different candidates, as I am doing this year. However, I do feel that our elections greatly lack in one particular aspect. Not enough flyers. Kidding, I’m kidding, please don’t kill me. No, I feel that these elections lack the edge other elections have in the area of smear campaigning.
Thankfully we already have the example of our country’s presidential campaign. Although elections won’t be until next November, the two competitors have already taken some nice jabs at one another. If it’s this bad already, imagine how dirty it’s going to get in a couple of months; we may have wrestling matches instead of debates (which, of course, I’ve been endorsing for years now). As for our campaigning, where are the dirty little secrets of the opponent, the wild accusations, or the funny cartoon caricatures? Nowhere. And that’s what is wrong with these elections.
Now, just so we all understand one another, here is an example of “clean” campaigning with some hypothetical characters.
Vote for Dan: Dan is the Man. Dan cares about students’ needs and has years of experience being a student. If elected, Dan hopes to install Web cameras in all the classrooms so we don’t have to go to class.
Vote for Tammi: Tammi is no Grammy (as in Grandma). Tammi is sympathetic to what students look for in a university and is certain she can help. Tammi believes in students’ rights and if elected will eat three large pizzas in front of everyone.
Now, there is a certain pattern we have in these “clean” campaigning examples. First we have the name with a lame motto attached (the lamer the motto, the easier it is to remember the candidate, so I can’t argue with that method). Then we have the qualifications of the candidate and what they hope to do if elected. By the way, I think both of them have excellent platform goals, but that’s not the point. The point is that something is missing. The following is an example of what could be done to spice up their campaigning with a little bit of smear.
Don’t vote for Tammi: Tammi is a Grammy (as in Grandma). Tammi is just in it for the scholarship since she lost her other one for getting a C in her Biological Anthropology class, which she skipped four times last semester for “health” reasons. The pizzas she plans to eat if elected won’t have any toppings and the crust will be thin.
Say NO to Dan: Dan is a Deadpan. Dan is only running for office because his girlfriend said he was a loser and he wants to prove her wrong. The reason Dan has so many years experience being a student is because he has changed his major seven times, all of them because they were too hard. (Liberal arts? Come on.) The Web cameras in classrooms idea was just a ploy to make it so he doesn’t have to pay long distance to talk to his parents.
As you can see, the improvement between the two campaigning methods is astonishing. We don’t even know the name of the person we want to vote for unless we look at the opponent’s campaign. The accusations may or may not be true, but they are certainly intriguing. Specific details like knowing grades or amount of major changes are a nice touch. Now, if you are worried that we will not see such smearing in this year’s elections, do not despair. Time is on our side. If you are currently running for an ASUSU office, you have two days to turn your campaign around. Your mission: Demoralize and demean your opponent through any means possible. If you aren’t running for any sort of office, you can still help. When you are confronted with another person campaigning, demand to know the personality flaws of the opponent. If we do this well, we can put the November elections to shame. Until then, I’ll see you dorm storming, and you can bet I’ll be loaded with plenty of inaccurate accusations with questionable sources.
Marty Reeder is a senior majoring in history education. To know the flaws of anyone running for office he can be contacted at martr@cc.usu.edu.