[arin-discuss] Fwd: [ARIN-Suggestions] New ACSP Suggestion 2014.10: CHANGES TO CANDIDATE SPEECHES

[Rob Seastrom]

Paul Andersen <paul at egate.net> writes:

> 				      -1 
> I'm having a hard time
> reconciling what is going on here.  The idea of effectively
> pre-approving candidate messaging feels to me like the proposed cure
> is worse then the disease.

Agree with Paul here.  Candidates are given a couple of minutes to
present, nominally to say something about their platform and why you
should vote for them.

A time-limited presentation is all the restriction that is proper.  If
the candidate wishes to go off on a completely unrelated tangent,
expound on conspiracy theories, or recite poetry that ought to be
their prerogative.  If the oration is completely irrelevant to the
election, hopefully that will inform the electorate's voting decision.

Specious allegations from the usual directions notwithstanding, a
statement of endorsement for another candidate has nothing to do with
"election rigging".  I expect that anyone who is qualified to stand
for an AC position will have a campaign statement that is more
substantive than merely saying to vote for someone else (though that
might be entirely reasonable in isolated cases).

Dictating the terms and framework of the message seem a bit over the
top to me.

In summary, opposed to ACSP 2014.10.

-r