This year’s Residence Hall Association (RHA) presidential election first resulted in a run-off between RHA Vice President of Programming and College sophomore Jessica Simon and RHA Publicity Chair and College sophomore Akshay Goswami. But after Simon filed cheating allegations again Goswami, who had received the most votes, the RHA Election Committee found ambiguities in RHA’s election policies. The rules state that a candidate may present a challenge within 24 hours after the election but had failed to specify whether the term “election” referred to the run-off or general round. A new general election will take place as a result.
As we wrote in a staff editorial last week regarding the cheating allegations in the SGA presidential election against College junior and SGA President Raj Patel, we feel cheating should not result in a penalty of community service hours but should disqualify a candidate. The current punishment is merely a minor inconvenience, and the Elections Board should impose a “zero-tolerance” policy. The presidents of SGA and RHA have important duties and represent the student body as a whole. Cheating in these elections, therefore, should not simply result in community service hours and should be taken more seriously.
Candidates utilized social media in their campaigns, which resulted in campaign violations in both the SGA and RHA elections, and we at the Wheel feel that this fact further demonstrates a need to reform elections bylaws for these organizations. Of course, we are disappointed in the fact that the candidates cheated at all, but what is even more concerning are the vague clauses that currently exist in election rules for both of these organizations. It is confusing that in the SGA presidential election, Patel received community service hours and won the election. But in the RHA election, Goswami, who had received the most votes, will have to complete community service hours in addition to participating in an entirely new election.
Goswami himself put it best when he told the Wheel, “It makes no sense to me. If you look at SGA, Raj Patel was accused of cheating on the voting day, and he just got community service, and he still got his position. I got five hours of community service in addition to another election, and all I did was make my Facebook group a little earlier.” Goswami, as the Wheel reported, was found guilty of violating the rules by creating a Facebook campaign group before the 5 p.m. campaign start time.
While it is unlikely that these Facebook groups and posts would have won either candidate the election, there are certainly lines that need to be drawn, and that’s why we recommend that the SGA and RHA election committees revise their own policies and bylaws in order to set a precedent and have clear, specific rules in place pertaining to social media so that there are no unintentional campaign violations in the future.
Of course, we are not saying there should be a ban on social media from election campaigns altogether, but it’s essential that such rules specify whether, for example, having a cover photo telling viewers to vote for a candidate is a campaign violation.
Section Three of the SGA Elections Bylaws states: “On the date of the election, no candidate, campaign staffer, nor any other individual excluding the Elections Board will be allowed to encourage individuals to vote by standing near or in any way providing eligible students computers on which to vote” (Editor’s Note: See our corrected staff editorial regarding this clause online). But nowhere does it clarify what constitutes campaigning with regard to social media sites. Essentially, when it comes to social media, the rules are unclear and the lines must be drawn somewhere. If candidates are going to allege cheating based on sites like Facebook and Twitter, the SGA bylaws must be updated to include this possibility.
The RHA elections bylaws do list acknowledge social networking sites as an example of campaigning. While this is certainly an improvement over SGA’s bylaws, there is still a need for some specificity as to what constitutes a violation. The RHA policies provide in-depth explanations about the rules of placing posters on campus: they must be a certain size, for instance, and they may not be placed “on the outside of a building or any window or outside door.” As for online publicity, the policies merely state: “The Elections Board Chair must be notified by candidates regarding any online social networking groups.” Perhaps it is time to ensure that “online publicity” receives the same attention in the RHA bylaws that posters and flyers do.
Based on the controversies surrounding this year’s student government elections, it is evident that campaign rules must ensure there are no loopholes that could potentially allow a candidate to cheat. If the rules for social media are more clearly defined, we can prevent this from becoming a trend. We feel that beyond disqualifying candidates for cheating, an action that should not be taken lightly, the rules must be updated to reflect the societal transition to social media.
The above staff editorial represents the majority opinion of the Wheel’s editorial board.
The Emory Wheel was founded in 1919 and is currently the only independent, student-run newspaper of Emory University. The Wheel publishes weekly on Wednesdays during the academic year, except during University holidays and scheduled publication intermissions.
The Wheel is financially and editorially independent from the University. All of its content is generated by the Wheel’s more than 100 student staff members and contributing writers, and its printing costs are covered by profits from self-generated advertising sales.
I don’t understand why all of these silly and otherwise draconian social media policies are necessary. Does it really make a difference if a candidate encourages people to vote (right next to their election profile picture, I may add!) as opposed to the candidate just outright asking you to vote for them? As we clearly saw in this election, things just get so unnecessarily complicated.
I am an Emory alumna who graduated from the College in 2012. I was a member of the SGA Elections Board for the 2009 and 2010 university-wide elections and the SGA Attorney General for the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 academic years. I hope I can shed some light on electoral turbulence.
The editorial states:
“It is confusing that in the SGA presidential election, Patel received community service hours and won the election. But in the RHA election, Goswami, who had received the most votes, will have to complete community service hours in addition to participating in an entirely new election.”
I think this disregards a very important fact: SGA and RHA are two different organizations. Their elections rules are different. The hearing process looks different. And the way that they sanction candidates is different.
I am not familiar with what either election board considered in this election cycle. And I can only speak for how the SGA Elections Board works because I have never interacted with the RHA electoral process.
The SGA Elections Code defines violations in this way:
“1.9.1 Proportional Spending Violations: Candidates spending over the one hundred dollar ($100.00) limit for campaign spending, or spending over the ten dollar ($10.00) limit on campaign giveaways and merchandise, or being unable to reasonably account for a gap between the reported expenditures and money raised, shall be charged five (5) hours of service for each dollar, or part thereof, up to the first three dollars ($3.00), and an additional two (2) hours for each additional dollar, or part thereof, over said spending limits.
1.9.2 Limited Violations: Candidates may be charged financial or community service penalties at the discretion of the SGA Board of Elections, in proportion to the violation, for those violations which, in sufficient quantity, would influence the outcome of the election, but in few occurrences would have only a negligible impact.
1.9.3 Sweeping Violations: Candidates shall be charged a minimum of thirty (30) hours and a maximum of one hundred (100) hours of community service for each instance of infraction plus referral to appropriate bodies for additional action for violations that cast doubt on the integrity of the election process or have a potentially large influence on the outcome of the election.”
Under the SGA Code, the SGA Elections Board is charged with using the severity of the violation to determine an appropriate sanction. And any determinations can be appealed to the Constitutional Council, which is the highest student government judicial body.
I’m assuming RHA rules look different and that’s what led to the different outcomes.
Second: there are rules for social media.
Here is the language from the article the editorial cites:
“3.5 Advertising shall be permitted using only Emory University controlled media or such other media venues as permitted by the SGA Board of Elections through a published list.”
You can only use platforms that are approved by the elections board, and if that is not sufficient:
“3.1 Solicitation of Votes
3.1.1 All materials used to solicit votes must be approved by the SGA Board of Elections, the Chair of the SGA Board of Elections, or a designate. The sole basis of disqualification must be violation of this Code. The Board shall not judge the merit or content of any promotion. Approval shall be signified by the signature of the Chair or a designate of the Chair.
3.1.2 Candidates shall be held responsible for all campaigning undertaken as a result of their request or at the grant of their permission.
3.1.3 No method of campaigning expressly authorized by this Code shall be permitted unless approved by the SGA Board of Elections.”
This is a catch-all — if you’re doing anything to solicit votes, it has to be approved by the elections board. When there is ambiguity, the Board as a whole votes on how to approach the matter and the interpretation of the Board can be appealed to the Constitutional Council.
I say this with a little authority because I was on the SGA Elections Board that wrote the Code currently in use. I think it’s one thing to argue that the language of the Elections Code is not specific, but inaccurate to argue language around social media is absent.
Kristin Bielling