While we’re on the subject of strong words, I think disenfranchisement is also a profoundly strong word to use here. Ryan is not depriving anyone the right to vote by endorsing a candidate. As you say, Michael, Midd students are a smart bunch and should not select their candidate of choice based on Ryan’s or anyone’s endorsement. As we have already seen in the comments, several Midd students have stepped forward to indicate preference for another candidate.

If any of our readers would like to submit their own endorsement of an SGA Candidate, please email tips [at] midd-blog.com. (A post of this nature would be longer than is generally appropriate to leave in the comments). Alternatively, if you have thoughts on another subject entirely, you can also submit a post to the same address. This option has always been available to our readers and I hope more of you take advantage of this feature, as a few of our readers have already done.

* Sarah, ethical arguments based on “well, everyone’s doing it” are historically weak, considering examples such as misogyny and homophobia.

My ethical problems with this post are two-fold:
1. exploitation of unequal access to mass media

People have come to expect a higher standard from Midd-blog; it’s not your average Joe’s opinion blog–it’s a news source, and one of only two major ones available to the Middlebury community. However, as only approved writers can post stories, access to Midd-blog’s readership is limited. Perhaps Midd-Blog is accepting endorsements from everyone, but if–as I suspect–it is not, this creates an unfair campaigning situation. Imagine analogies in which CNN ran Obama campaign ads but refused to air McCain’s, or in which the New York Times ran a headline reading “McCain Best Man for the Job” without giving Obama similar coverage. Just as these media titans have the power to influence national opinion, so too does Midd-Blog have the same authority (and attached responsibility) within the Middlebury Bubble, though apparently in posting this endorsement that was overlooked.

2. voter disenfranchisement through endorsements

When a person publicly endorses a candidate for office, he or she is asking others to vote for that candidate simply by way of respect for the endorsers’ opinions. Put another way, it means “vote the way I tell you to,” a decidedly undemocratic statement. When people vote along party lines, or on the recommendation of an entity like the NAACP, the AFL-CIO, or Pat Robinson, they are handing their ballot (and sovereignty) over–relieving themselves of the citizen’s onerous duty to make an informed decision–and so democracy suffers. Similarly, the SGA’s fragile legitimacy suffers when already-apathetic students simply throw their ballot to the candidate whose name they’ve seen most often. Middlebury students are, in theory, a smart bunch; we can–and should–think for ourselves, rather than letting somebody else suggest the best candidate to us.

If unethical is too strong, I still find endorsements in poor taste. I can only hope The Campus does not endorse a candidate (though I fully expect that, unable to resist the allure of the pulpit, they will).

Your grammar is deplorable.

With Warmest Regards,

Andrew DeLoach’s second cousin

http://www.alexanderforsga.com/

Thanks for your thoughts. Just thought I should mention that Commons Chairs are not elected in all Commons on campus, only some. If you read my policies carefully, you’ll see that I mention “campus-wide” electoral democracy in the Commons system – key phrase: “campus-wide”. Furthermore, I argue for the introduction of governing constitutions – something you do not mention at all.

Perhaps you should brush up on the finer bits of Midd’s bureaucracy before make pronouncements? Haha, no harm done

Cheers,
Nick