So, the “Emily and San Campaign” has become the first target of the ubiquitous-in-election season grievance. Grievances, which roughly translate into “whining,” are traditionaly hurled between campaigns over every possible perceived breach of election rules and common courtesy. As ineffective as grievances typically are, it seems that they may now be doomed to practical irrelevance.

The ASUO Elections Board ruled, as noted earlier, that the Mclain/Sunowen ticket had violated election rules. The ruling has been appealed by Mclain, on a number of points, which are summarized here. So confident is the Mclain/Sunowen campaign that the Elections Board ruling will be overturned, that they apparently have decided to go ahead and campaign (according to eyewitnesses) despite the one-day ban imposed on them by the Election Board ruling. Are they right? Are they wrong? You play Con Court.

As I hinted at before, grievances are just another stupid little game to make ASUO-types feel important, and really don’t make any difference. Whether or not Mclain/SunOwen used the College Dem’s listserv doesn’t make much of a difference, considering how tight Ms. Mclain is with that organization. If you care about this kind of thing, go ahead and file a grievance against Richard Nile, who’s campaign sent out this email via an Econ 399 listserv. Or, you know, whatever…

This entry was posted on Monday, April 9th, 2007 at 18:15 by Niedermeyer and is filed under Elections. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.