I am normally not one to defend the Student Election Commission, but they made the right call in not certifying the MTD referendum. If the question read an increase of $12 while the so-called “real vote” is over an increase of $3, then clearly there is a problem with the question.

If the intention of the administration is to renegotiate a $9 increase regardless of the additional service, why not make that clear? What would have happened if that referendum failed? A clarifying paragraph or external link was in order and has precedent both in the vote that formed the Illinois Student Senate, the vote that approved the Legacy Scholarship, and most recently the commentary inserted by our meddling VCSA on the Chief referendum.

In my opinion, the SEC was right to point out the vote was divided; the analogy of the Board of Trustees as a tiebreaker is fitting. The only thing the student body was unified about was in apathy towards the election, which columns in this very paper enhanced!

The editorial concedes that the referendum was not “representational” but then expresses disappointment that it was not forced through anyway.

The board might spend some time rallying against cramdowns rather than for them.

Patrick Lynch

Grad student in engineering