End Of Days

THE METROPOLITAN » JANUARY 31, 2008 » A8

insight EDITORIAL:

End of Days

A fool and his money ... A recent decision by Metro’s Student Government Assembly to use student fees to remodel its office space is a superfluous use of funds that could be better used to actually serve the students of this campus. The original proposal, which is now in the process of being revamped, would have allocated $28,650 to provide for a conference room, new furniture and additional office space. The plan has gone back to the drawing board, but could total no more than $25,000 when all is said and done, according to SGA Vice President Andrew Bateman. This is assuming the senate approves the new draft of the plan when it is brought back to a vote. The money stems from a $50,000 budget surplus that has accumulated during the past three years, much of which has already been put to good use. The SGA gave $35,713 to various groups on campus for events such as the Martin Luther King Peace breakfast and Metro State 5k run. This was an efficient use of the budget surplus; an office renovation is not. Reasons given by the president and vice president of the assembly as to why the remodeling is needed are appalling and self-serving. “Giving a whole bunch of student groups money is great, and I was happy we were able to do that last year,” Bateman said. “But that only helps a very small percentage of students. Making our office an efficient working body is something that would be beneficial to the entire campus.” Really? How so? According to Bateman, a better-designed office would promote a professional image and increase efficiency. SGA President Aaron Wylie said, “When people have better materials, they’re able to do better work.” A main reason for the budget surplus is due to childish squabbles that led to resignations, which left a number of paid positions vacant for extended periods of time. But clearly, the inefficiency was because it had “operated as a student government in a horribly laidout space with substandard equipment for a long time,” to quote President Wylie. If this proves a valid argument, then with renovation comes stability, production and results. Doubtful. If anything, all it will accomplish is to give members of the SGA a sense of importance and style. It is obvious this proposal is fueled by the self-indulgence of the executive branch and only benefits members of the student government, no matter what rhetoric is spewed from the powers that be. Since the money stems from student fees, surplus or not, the decision whether or not to use the money for an office renovation should have been brought before the students of Metro and voted upon. There are other ways to more effectively spend the money, ways that will actually serve the student body. For example, the extra money could be put into a fund to assist students with the highest amount of need, who are academically sound but do not have the resources to pay for a college education. A scholarship fund, if you will. The money could also be used to provide funds for incoming freshman who commit to a four-year completion plan, have proven themselves academically astute and have a need for financial assistance. The money given to these students would be earmarked exclusively for personal computers that would further their education. Unlike a loan, this money would not have to be paid back. These are just two feasible options that would actually serve the student body. Imagine the ideas that would stem from a serious brainstorming session of the elected leaders of the assembly. A new renovation plan is in the works and will go before the SGA senate for a vote of approval. Senators of the SGA need to revoke this plan and make better use of the money. The time for leadership is now. It’s time to put aside personal preferences, agendas and empty rhetoric. The student body of Metro does not need its elected officials to be comfortable and self-indulgent. It longs for its elected officials to step up and do what they were put in office to do: to serve the people and not themselves.

Written by GEOF WOLLERMAN » [email protected] Illustrated by ANDREW HOWERTON » [email protected]

Paper ballots or robots? Technology is often a good thing. Who would want to go back to a time before the wheel, plastics, or the Internet? And yet, just because some mad scientist invents a better toiletpaper dispenser, or say, a flashy new voting system, doesn’t mean the whole world needs it. At first thought, Denver’s idea of using a computerized voting system sounds like a great idea. No more ripped paper, no more stuffing ballot boxes, and counting the votes is as easy as hitting return. In reality, however, when Denver rolled out its redesigned, computerage voting system two years ago, the system performed as well as, say, my computer when I have a paper due the next morning. It just whirred a bit, and then crashed. Anyone who has a computer knows the feelings of depression and anger, loss and confusion that they can cause when they mysteriously don’t work. I can only imagine how Denver’s voting commission felt on Nov. 7, 2006. The system started slowing down in the morning, had to be rebooted several times during the day and ended up taking days to tally the votes. An estimated 20,000 voters did not get the chance, mostly because they didn’t have three hours to wait in line. The experiment in technology failed — for all the same reasons technology will always be viewed by humans with suspicion: the appearance of mysterious gremlins and human error — but this was not just another frustrating afternoon trying to figure out why the computer

didn’t work. Because of this, democracy was suddenly not available to 20,000 citizens. Truly, it was a mass violation of their fundamental rights. Because these people had to go to work, they didn’t have the time to vote. Rich people, I am sure, did not have this problem. The fact that the whole city government was not dragged through the street by an angry mob, is baffling to me, but that is another subject. The point here is that if we do not have a vote, then we are not living in a democracy. Having the vote is the whole enchilada — and as anyone who goes to Taco Bell can tell you — you don’t leave the enchilada up to a computer. While Gov. Bill Ritter’s decision this week to return to paper ballots for November’s election is because the computers we used in 2006’s election recently lost their certification, the real reason we should stick to paper is because paper is the only trustable technology when our vote is concerned, that or maybe stone tablets. Paper ballots work, they don’t crash and any human can use them. Computers (and the people who program them) cannot be trusted with our vote. And this isn’t even the deeper, underlying danger of computers in voting. Having grown up in a time influenced by the philosophical ideals of Star Wars and The Terminator, The Jetsons and Futurama, I have both always dreamed of one day having my own robot and at the same time feared that robots will one day take

ANDREW FLOHRSPENCE [email protected] over the world. How cool would it be to have a little metal friend who could cook, calculate odds, speak every language and shoot lasers when things got rough? But then, there is the fact we have all thought about: if robots ever did start thinking for themselves, they would obviously decide humanity is too dangerous and too stupid to leave in charge of the planet and either kill us off or use us as batteries when the atmosphere burns off. The threat of computerized voting, therefore, is clear. We will only be helping the computers come one step closer to enslaving us and/or running us off their planet. The census among many election officials appears to be that it’s time to go back to the drawing board, we just have to figure out the kinks. But why not forget the drawing board altogether? The danger here is too great — of disenfranchising voters, of helping humanity’s overthrow by the robots. Anyway, we already have a voting system that works just fine.