Threat to Democracy

Democracy. Hmm. "Government by the whole people of a country, especially through representatives whom they elect," according to a ratty dictionary in the Review office whose cover has long ago worn off. That's an interesting thought when our ratty electoral college system has not yet worn off from our Constitution.

With an outcome as close as that of Tuesday's election, many voters feel for the first time that their vote actually made a difference, or would have, if it hadn't been for the concerns raised this week over the validity of some ballots. The elections have resulted in chaos and uncertainty in the presidential race. It is certain that whoever becomes President will do so by a very slim (and likely disputed) margin.

We can fight and bicker about who cost whom the election, or who should end up President, but the fact remains that the winner of this election will not represent the will of the American people. Nearly half of the American people did not vote in this election, and those who did are finding that because of an anti-democratic system put in place to ensure aristocratic influence over early American politics, their votes may not matter because the electoral votes of the state they live in are not crucial.

It is clear that the electoral college is outdated. For a nation that sends election monitors around the world and enacts sanctions against countries whose elections are not democratic, it is shameful to have a system in which a president can hold office despite the fact that a rival has greater support among the people. Gore may not hold a convincing majority, and ‹ like it or not ‹ this system would still be unfair and undemocratic if Bush held the popular majority and Gore that of the electors, but whoever wins the popular vote must be allowed to be president.

America has become, through history, a federation. We cannot continue to allow individual states a disproportionate effect on the governance of this nation as a whole. America is striving to be a democracy. As such, we must cherish the fundamental aspect of democracy: the will of the people.

Marriott Unwanted

What do Residential Life and Services, the Housing and Dining Committee and the Dean of Students' office have in common? They just don't understand that Oberlin Students are fed up with Sodexho-Marriott. We're fed up with supporting private prisons with our dining money. We're fed up with being used to make up for the school's financial shortcomings by being forced to pay for meals we will not eat, whether it is because we do not have time to eat at certain hours, cannot stomach the food in the dining halls or prefer to cook our own meals.

An article in this week's issue of the Review reported that beginning in January, companies will bid to be the College's provider of dining services, and that among other national and local companies, Sodexho-Marriott will be allowed to make its own case to continue to be our provider.

Hank Steinberg, the consultant hired by the school to examine the current problems with the dining system can be praised for recognizing the more superficial problems in the dining program, such as the hours of service and the quality of service, but he did not bother to address other, more pressing problems. What about off-campus students who do not want to have to lie about their marital status just to provide for themselves? What about the on-campus students who eat only half their meals a week because they are not allowed to choose a meal plan that, while costing exactly the same amount that it costs for other plans, allows them the opportunity to replace some of their meals with flex dollars that they can use at their convenience?

Sodexho-Alliance's involvement with the private prison industry is a fundamental issue of concern for Oberlin students and it is lamentable that part of Steinberg's task was not to evaluate this aspect of Marriott's relationship with the College.

Dean of Students Peter Goldsmith is to be commended for raising this concern and announcing that Sodexho-Alliance has said it intends to divest itself of its stock in the Corrections Corporation of America, and that he and others "will be watching that with some interest." But who's to say that once Sodexho won't back up once its bid is accepted? There must be some kind of consequence or conditional arrangement presented to the company before it is offered our support again.

However, Goldsmith's statement that "it will be to the advantage of Oberlin if [the bidding process] is highly competitive," reveals that in the end the decision will ultimately be made on a strictly financial basis. Unfortunately, the fact that Sodexho-Marriott is once again being offered the opportunity to provide our meals implies that the "advantage" Goldsmith discusses is the advantage to Oberlin as a business. Otherwise, he and others in charge of the re-evaluation would long ago have acknowledged students' frustrations with Sodexho-Marriott and refused to allow it the opportunity to bid once again.