On Tuesday afternoon this week
I happened to look into the "ballot
box" which had been placed in the
doorway to the Snack Bar in
Newcomb Hall. This box was a
cardboard crate with about a fourth
of the top missing, effectively wide
open to passersby, sitting on a chair
with a stack of blank ballots next
to it and a sign reading, "Vote
Here." In the bottom were a large
number of ballots - about 200, I'd
guess - and I noticed that none of
the ones on top were marked;
supposedly all abstentions. Then I
noticed that most of the ballots
were in a wad, neatly fanned out as
if one had dropped a deck of cards
(or a stack of blank ballots) into
the box. After lifting a few of the
top ones it was evident that none,
or practically none, of the ballots in
the box was marked or showed
signs of having been individually
placed there.
The obvious inference is that
someone who wants to inflate the
number of ballots cast in the
present Judiciary referendum
dropped a number of "abstentions"
into the ballot box. While the active
group on the Grounds which seeks
to expand student control in such
areas as the Judiciary Committee
would never engage in such a tactic,
it is well known to their supporter
that they have been having trouble
getting even 23% of the student
body to vote, in three days, in
ballot boxes scattered in every
conceivable gathering place (such as
at a public bus stop on Main
Street). Forty percent is the required
minimum. As reported Monday,
the vote after three days was
three to one in favor of the new
judiciary constitution, but those
voting "yes" were only 14% of the
student body, which is hardly a
mandate for change. If the 77% o
the students who did not vote in
that time is any indication, th
there is no sizeable segment of th
student population which
anxious to reform the Judiciary.
Constitution, and the three additional
days of voting which have
been added will only invite ballot
stuffing and other breeches of the
Honor Code by those who want to
push the vote over the 40% minimum.
It is a sorry fact, but one that
may have to be faced, that the
Honor pledge to vote only once will
not protect student referendums
and elections from any group
determined to commit fraud. While
it may have been unwise for the
Judiciary Committee, the group
that will benefit from the new
Constitution, to have modified the
election procedures in their favor
after an unfavorable initial return
became know, or for them to have
endorsed the distribution of ballot
boxes to so many inconsequential
places, the greatest harm in this
referendum may be to student faith
in the integrity of unpoliced voting
conducted in elections under the
Honor System.
