With the Student Assembly elections behind us, Dartmouth can look forward to a period of new leadership. We congratulate Noah Riner '06 and Jeffrey Coleman '08 on their successful campaigns for Student Body President and Assembly Vice President, respectively. We hope they remain faithful to their campaign pledges, in particular, their promises to reach out to the campus. Commendation is in order for all candidates, successful or otherwise, for their desire to improve Dartmouth and for their willingness to invest time and energy to do so.
Though instant runoff voting proved successful, the controversy surrounding some candidate sanctions was disturbing. In particular, the suspension of the campaign privileges of Paul Heintz '06 and Brian Martin '06 at a crucial moment in the election highlights problems with the overall feasibility of election regulation. That the injunction was handed down without the benefit of a hearing also seems to run counter to the democratic principles that should guide any election. Moreover, that the hearing -- which removed the restrictions on Heintz and Martin -- was conducted 24 hours after the injunction appears highly dubious. EPAC's decision could have changed the election results; after all, Riner won by a scant 29-vote margin. Perhaps the results would have been different had Martin and Heintz not lost their privileges on the most vital day of campaigning. It's highly ironic and unfortunate that the actions of EPAC -- created to ensure fair and just elections -- cast a pall of doubt on the election's final results.
This year's assimilation of EPAC into Student Assembly also raises questions -- there are excellent reasons why the Federal Election Commission is not a Congressional committee. To remedy the situation, oversight of EPAC could be returned to Palaeopitus.
EPAC should additionally acknowledge the impracticality of enforcing fair-play election rules in an age when widespread use of electronic mail makes it virtually impossible to control or regulate speech. EPAC's role should be limited to monitoring candidate spending and controlling only libelous speech. The draconian restrictions on speech in this election are difficult to justify. In the future, candidates should be allowed to operate with as few restrictions as possible.
