Viewable Online Here
Your first clue was probably the barrage of signs standing at attention in the grass.
Or maybe you grew accustomed to being handed some kind of vote flyer every time you passed Dale Hall.
In any case, unless you were staging a one-student sit-in within the confines of your room during the previous week, you're likely aware that the UOSA presidential election recently took place.
As with all elections, the preceding campaigning was done tirelessly by candidates and their legions of supporters.
From the aforementioned flyers and signs to chalkings and individual handshakes, virtually every campaign tactic possible was used.
There was one notable exception, at least in the public arena. Nowhere was there any negative campaigning or mudslinging to be found.
Being a well-regulated campus, this is as likely due to OU rules as it is to candidate decency.
No matter what the reason, it is not there, and that is to be commended.
Look around at virtually any election of consequence at any level of government.
Almost guaranteed, every candidate will precede it with a campaign that paints every other candidate in a negative light.
Many will say this is a necessary part of establishing oneself as the best candidate. To this I cannot agree.
While it is necessary to establish superiority over the other candidates, this method of negative campaigning is not the way to do it.
An ideal election is one in which the voters choose the best candidate.
However, due to the maelstrom of mudslinging that characterizes current elections, most voters do not receive enough credible information to determine who is the best candidate. Instead, most simply vote for the person who appears to not be the worst.
This method of simply picking the "least of the evils" is not what a democratic election ought to be. But because of the rampant smear campaigns, it has emerged as the only way.
Indeed, I would go so far as to say that these campaigns have played a significant role in the increasingly negative image of the political system when compared to previous decades.
The main force behind this is probably the general voter's view of most negative campaigns.
A propensity to attack competing candidates while not highlighting one's own campaign generally gives off a lack of confidence in that campaign.
And if the candidate himself does not believe in the value of his platform, then why should the voter?
While not all politicians practice negative campaigns, the vast majority of them unfortunately do.
This election season, count the number of negative ads each candidate sponsors, and you'll see what I mean.
With each negative ad they run, the candidates get closer and closer to the increasingly popular caricature of shady, conniving, opportunistic baby-kissers.
The UOSA candidates certainly aren't such people. They are running simply because they want to be a larger part of this university, not because their livelihood will benefit from their potential office.
As clich? as it may sound, the candidates are truly running their own campaigns.
As such, they cannot shift blame for bad decisions or unfavorable campaign stunts on to party strategists or bellicose campaign managers.
Each candidate really is only representing him or herself.
Whether a candidate had your vote from the very moment of announcing his or her candidacy, or someone won your vote through long hours of campaigning, each stood as public examples of political civility.
They did their best to portray themselves favorably, but stopped well short of sullying their opponents' names.
Whether you particularly cared for any of the candidates or not, I hope you at least enjoyed the campaigns of each ticket.
In our modern democratic system of party strategies, focus groups, multimillionaire donors and ultra-active PACs, it's pretty safe to assume that campaign civility is likely seen nowhere except on South Oval.
No comments:
Post a Comment