University of Virginia Library

An Election Analysis

By Ed Hayes

—ed.

The election just ended was the most
significant of the last four years. Earlier
elections had been largely determined by the
individual attractiveness of the candidates.
Issues are now, however, more visible and
important in the campaigns.

Elections are no longer settled in the
dormitories. Cabell Hall is the center of
off-grounds voting. It was there that the
Virginia Progressives built up decisive leads.
Off-ground voters have little personal contact
with the candidates. They were attracted by the
party and its widely-publicized platform.

The extremely high turnout, I feel, was the
result of voters taking the opportunity to
choose among ideological alternatives. The
choice was between the Virginia Progressives
who were perceived as liberals and the caucus
candidates who, except for Steve Hayes and Bill
Fryer, were billed as conservatives.

One new, and totally unjustifiable addition
to the campaign was the smear letter
distributed by supporters of the conservative
candidates the night before the election.

The Virginia Progressives reply, the infamous
blue sheet, was a personal attack that was
in poor taste. It was written by one man and
not widely passed around in the party before
distribution. They, at least, had the decency to
apologize for it.

No such action came from the individuals
who precipitated the exchange. Their letter was
factually incorrect, distorted and an indirect
but clear personal attack on the VPP
candidates.

It is particularly disturbing that it was given
support by the individuals on the cover letter.
The originators of the letter saw fit to convince
some individuals, notably Bick Cardwell, who is
a fine person and above such tactics, that they
were only protesting the Cavalier Daily's action,
not endorsing the letter. One of the primary
political gimmicks at the University is non-partisanship.
The letter was signed by the
Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the
"Past President" of the College who is still
serving as Honor Committee Chairman. If the
myth of non-partisanship ever dies, it ought to
die now. They protect the status quo and, as
Pete Grey did last year when he spoke against
recognition of the SDS, act when it is in danger.

The status quo got a decisive no vote and
reform a decisive yes vote in this election. With
the increase in issue orientation, comes a
decrease in the fraternity-independent split.
While both sides fuel it, it is probably mainly
perpetuated by some of the more conservative
fraternity leaders.

They do so to protect their interest, the
status quo (or their perception of the status
quo which is forty years out of date,) and their
own power. They have no intention of sharing
the power with the overwhelming majority of
fraternity men.

There is not one thing about the VPP which
is incompatible with fraternity membership. It
is certain that fraternity men will continue to
go down in defeat if they stay in line behind
conservative leaders.

There is a serious need for reform at the
University. The VPP is dedicated to these
reforms. Their proposals are based on a
open-minded and perceptive analysis of the
problems. The party contains a broad spectrum
of membership, that is all the more reason for
the progressive, but not radical, to get involved
so that they may have a voice in how these
reforms are achieved.

The issues involved in these elections are
increasingly important. Both fraternity men
and independents must be guided by their
stands on the issues, not the basically irrelevant
one of membership or non-membership in a
fraternity.