The Daily Dartmouth‘ Editorial Board wrote today that they “are disheartened by the election of Stephen Smith ‘88.” Listing among other terrible things, the support Smith received from previous petition trustee candidates as proof of his inadequacy. Oh my! In addition, they were troubled by his “lack of transparency”—not that one could tell from this convoluted paragraph:
A lack of transparency limits the alumni body’s ability to make an informed decision. If Smith had disclosed the close-knit nature of his cadre, some alumni who voted for him may not have done so. In addition, although Smith’s victory implies that a significant portion of alumni were not troubled by his disingenuous stance — claiming independence while concealing the sources of his support — they may have been troubled by his potential affiliation with an outspoken interest group. Petition candidates would increase their legitimacy by making their funding and mailing list sources public.
The solution? More rules and regulations of course, because, as we all know, campaign regulation always leads to freer more open elections. With so many rules and regulations, what would possibly be the incentive not to follow them?
Be the first to comment on "The Daily D: We’re Disheartened"