What fanciful and fabricated stories are you talking about? Here’s what I’ve seen from Knight News in the last couple weeks:

1. They exposed the tailgate controversy, and contradiction between UCF, SGA and the Orlando Sentinel.

2. They forced SGA to release a copy of the A&SF Budget. Now, the Future is going every Friday, and between both news sources, we found out about the carpet they’re trying to use our money to buy in the Union.

3. They endorsed a candidate, and called it an editorial. BIG FUCKING DEAL. The Future did this every year until this year. What happened when the Future didn’t endorse Logan and Logan lost? He cut their funding to zero. I’m sure the Future was advised not to endorse, since the election was shaping up to be so close. And in the end it was.

4. Coverage of Zeta’s philanthropy event.

5. They investigated UCF’s attempts to brush a mold infestation under the rug.

6. They showed us pictures of a man with machine guns in a UCF area.

7. They broke the news of this election violation, even though UCF apparently didn’t want us to know about it. They interviewed Kyle and quoted him. It was fair.

What has Knight News “fabricated?” If you are upset with them writing editorial opinions, get over it. They have that right. They covered Kilbride’s campaign with a fair, unbiased reporter. Same with Seeff’s.

I’m happy there is a media source that actually gives a damn and will stand up and fight for our First Amendment rights. I am happy Kyle is standing up to fight for our rights. I wish more people would see things for what they are.

Sidenote: If kyle cares so much about this subject and is spending countless hours researching and writing statements why can’t he manage to show up to the hearing? He should have used his convincing arguments to persuade his boss to let him take an early lunch; people do it all the time!

I have been a heavy campaigner for the last 3 SGA presidential elections and I would say it’s about an 75/25 mark on students who vote at the booths on campus. 75% of the students vote for 2 reasons: 1) Free gifts (i.e. pizza, shirts, water, stickers) and 2) to get it over with and not be bothered anymore. The other 25% actually listen to platform points before voting.

Jess, you are very ignorant to believe that students at these stations who are soliticing votes aren’t doing so with pizza and sitting there telling them who to vote for at the computer while they are logging onto MyUCF. Yes, a student has the ability to vote for anyone they want, but you are not going to win this debate on the “freebies” issue.

I am not directly involved in SGA, but I now have a mission for the next year before I graduate and I encourage all who is frustrated with the way these ridiculous elections are run to join Schu and I. I really want to end the “pizza for votes” tradition we’ve had over the years and it needs to end NOW while we still have leaders on this campus with the passion to change this crap. If you want to join this escapade, please email me at rgarrett371@gmail.com. It’s gonna be a tough run and before we can go to Senate/SGA with the issue we need solutions to replace the current trend.

Lastly, if you would like to refute my opinions/comments, please have the balls to either A)contact me personally or B)leave your full name so that you have credibility.

I have a lot more opinions on this whole issue, but Schu said it better than I could.

I wasn’t talking about the total amount of UCF students, and neither was he. Schu is suggesting that 90% of the over 9,000 students who voted in this election only did so because they got something out of it, food or otherwise…there just wasn’t that much food (or campaigners) to go around for this to be so. Clearly, many students voted of their own accord.

And PS, the assertion that “this election system” favors the person that has the most money is a joke. EVERY ELECTION, from junior class president at Oviedo High School to president of the United States, favors the candidate with the most money…obviously. That is a systemic issue within our society and has no solution, because it really isn’t a problem – just the nature of elections.

He makes a few valid points and raises a few interesting questions. Reconsidering the processes any traditional institution, which he is encouraging, is generally a good idea. However, I question his motives…and additionally, there are so many glaring factual omissions within his commentary that it comprimises his entire argument.

“10% of the student body vote in a presidential election. While this is an admirable statistic, it is also problematic. I would surmise that 90% of those students”

90% of the 10%.

I think he makes plenty of valid points…

Pizza, food, and handouts are NOT in exchange for votes – that is called bribery. They are for all students, and their purpose is to draw attention to the voting station, NOT to use as a reward. If a candidate is seen only handing out pizza as a “gift” to students who voted for them, that is absolutely a violation of statutes and should be reported. Additionally, any student can vote for any candidate on any laptop out there, even if it’s at a biased station.

You “surmising” that 90% of students only voted because they got a slice of pizza doesn’t make sense given the election results. First of all, there wasn’t that much pizza and free food to account for all of those votes. Second, wouldn’t that mean that the person who had the most stuff would have won? Were you, like, asleep last week? The Kilbride-Lochrane campaign was outnumbered and outspent at least 2-1 by their competition – and that is an extremely conservative estimate. Seeff-Wolkenfeld had more food, more volunteers, more handbills, more shirts, more voting stations, more publicity, more everything. And yet…remind me again who won?

Additionally, remember LAST year’s election? Similar situation – those flashy candidates with a ton of free food, overzealous campaigners, expensive signs and empty promises? Yeah, they lost too.

In my experience as a campaigner I completely disagree that students only ask about pizza – I’ve campaigned for three years now and many, many times I’ve been asked to describe my candidate’s platform, or answer questions about the election or SGA in general. Though it’s true that the vast majority will just keep walking, when students ask questions of the campaigners, they do ask for relevant information.

Another thing: the neutral voting stations set up for votes also used the wi-fi. Was that unethical, too?

And PS: GWU is a private school with less than half of our students…so how is that comparison valid or relevant?