Editorial: The votes are all that count

With two candidates who want the same job and three courses of action, what’s an Elections Board to do?

The only thing that makes sense: Follow the constitution, count the votes like you should have and verify that Petter Dahlgren was democratically elected to the Student Fee Committee.

Any other choice would violate the ASPSU Constitution, and would simply be undemocratic.

Yazmin Estevez was verified to the SFC on Monday with results that were weighted when they shouldn’t have been. When voting, students were told to choose six of the eight candidates according to their preference. If a student picked a candidate as their first choice, the candidate received the equivalent of six “points” in this weighted system. If the candidate was selected as sixth preference, the candidate received one “point.”

Because Estevez received so many first-preference picks, she received more weighted votes than Dahlgren, so the board said she was victorious.

Dahlgren, however, received a greater total of single votes. And because the ASPSU Constitution explicitly states that the six candidates who receive the largest total of single votes will be elected, Dahlgren should be on the SFC in her place.

The Elections Board is hung up on a nonexistent dilemma that questions whether it would be unfair to students who voted using the preferential, weighted system. But following the constitution is fair, and essentially, it does not matter if students selected candidates with a preference in mind.

Whether the votes are weighted or not, students still voted for up to only six candidates. The voting system that should have been used requires students to pick their six favorite candidates. The weighted system not only requires students to pick their six favorite candidates, but it also asks them to list the candidates in the order of their preference.

The fact that votes were ranked according to preference doesn’t matter, solely because the constitution states that each vote counts as only one vote. It does not condone weighting votes. The board could have told students to do any number of things similar to voting with a preference, but all that would matter is for each vote to count as only one vote.

If the board chooses to follow the constitution, then Dahlgren will be elected.

If they ignore the constitution, and keep the results as they are, then Dahlgren, student body president-elect Hannah Fisher and the entire student body must appeal the unconstitutional and undemocratic decision.

Obviously, the answer is easy.

Apparently not for the Elections Board, which delayed a decision because they are trying to figure out why this flawed election took place. The problems behind the election do not matter at this point. The board must correct the flaw immediately, and then investigate the circumstances that caused the problem later.

Instead of making the easy, correct decision, the board brought up two other options.

They asked Fisher to use her appointment to put Dahlgren on the SFC, so that the results could stand as they are and the board could avoid problems. Instead of avoiding problems, this ignores and directly violates the constitution.

They also considered tossing out all the election results, and holding a special election for only the eight SFC liaison candidates. This would be taking 1,400 ballots that were cast correctly, but tallied incorrectly, and tossing them out the window. It would be the most undemocratic option this board could choose.

Even if a special election did happen, it would be more than difficult for the board to get even half of the 1,400 students who voted–the lowest voter turnout in the last five years–to vote again.

The Elections Board should not make this harder than it is. Everyone knows they caused a few slip-ups, but it doesn’t really matter. That is, as long as the board makes the correct, logical decision to put Dahlgren in his rightful place on the SFC.