I sincerely hope that everyone was as offended by Matt Dees' March 5 Viewpoints column as I was.
Despite the fact that Michael Songer's platform was defeated not once, but twice, Dees suggested that CAA President-elect Reid Chaney ought to abandon his own platform and adopt Songer's. Why hold elections at all? Why not just let the editor of The Daily Tar Heel select student body officers?
It is because, as we've seen this year, the opinion of the DTH editorial board does not necessarily reflect the opinion of student voters. The only candidate the DTH endorsed who was elected was running unopposed. Regardless of Dees' personal opinion, the majority of voters supported Chaney's platform and those people who care enough to vote are the ones who get their voices heard in our system.
Obviously Dees disagrees with the results of the election.
That is his right.
But he is wrong to recommend that the majority of voters have their votes nullified by having the winning candidate enact the losing platform. Platforms and campaign promises are the means by which we hold elected officials accountable. Dees' suggestion is an affront to the voters and the electoral process.
Beth Donaldson
Junior
