UPDATE: A typographical error has been fixed since this article went to print. Before, it read, "Considering that one candidate, John Valdespino, was disqualified for creating his Facebook group...." The original piece is as follows.
Dear Editor,
Now that the elections are over and we have our new SGA president — Kate Gremillion — is it too late to ask questions about the fairness of the elections procedure?
As I see it, the most obvious slant in Gremillion’s favor was the way in which the debate was conducted. The Commissioner of Elections, Isabelle Duran, a sorority sister of Gremillion’s, moderated, and made it very clear whom she favored.
Not only did the moderator interrupt the audience to ask her own question (to which Gremillion had a marvelous answer — stock question?) and allow Gremillion to answer first every time, but she allowed Gremillion rebuttals that were not rebuttals, but time extensions for Gremillion to further her point.
Using one’s sorority sisters to lob stock questions from the audience is one thing; using them to moderate “nonpartisan” debates is an entirely different issue that infringes upon the other candidate’s right to campaign on an even playing field.
Considering that one candidate, John Valdespino, was banned from using Facebook for creating his Facebook group two hours before the allotted time (even though he invited no one), these issues at the debate are serious. It seems that the elections supervisor took her job as seriously as a Boot bouncer checking for fake IDs. “No problem, girls, but no wristband for you sir.”
However, I commend the winner. It turns out SGA politics are a little more complicated than we thought. Apparently running without a party is a quick route to not getting elected. Sorry, Cody, next time don’t spend so much time selling yourself as qualified for the job; instead, find a large campus interest group to be your party, might I suggest our local revolutionaries, LUCAP?
Zachary Lombardo
music industry junior
39 comments
Iain Weigert
Perhaps you should not be attacking Zach as a person, but rather his argument, if you disagree with it.
Please note that you only included one point relevant to the article, and four insults.
Zach's letter is admittedly incendiary, but I'm afraid name-calling will not improve the situation, nor constructively contribute to any debate. Please (and this applies to everyone) consider your fellow students when posting.
Thank you.
First of all, you should not talk because you are the joke of Loyola. Let's be real. You were fired from Reslife(which never happens), and you were John's campaign manager. Maybe if you had read the Election Code, like a good campaign manager should do, then you would have known that ACTIVE campaigning includes creating a facebook page--whether you invited people or not. You're just pissed because your life literally means nothing to students on campus. Soo... I feel like this article should be null and void because, well... you're just an idiot.