Some went too far

Sirs,—I realise that students must now be tired of Executive elections: this is the third set this year. But this does not explain some of the events that have occurred in the last few weeks.

Firstly, it is interesting to notice that the ballot forms still indicated that students were to vote in order of preference for candidates. I was under the impression that preferential voting was abolished in the new Constitution. Why has this practice continued?

Surely it is not the job oft candidates, however zealous and righteous they may be, to go around taking election notices down the night before elections begin. The returning officer is being paid 30 dollars to run the elections. Let him do his Job.

The whole tempo and spirit of electioneering has noticeably increased. This is commendable to an extent, but when campaigning extends to sending anonymous letters to candidates, the boundaries have been overstepped.

A letter was received by a candidate telling him "to go home to Aussie, that he was not wanted here, and that if he got on to Executive 'we would isolate him." I deplore such tactics, whether In a joking way or seriously. The letter suggests that there is a group on the Executive who will make things uncomfortable for those they do not like, if they are elected. I wonder about the calibre of some of its members or their friends. An anonymous letter, however funny, indicates a gutless individual.

Defacing of candidates photos and posters seems to have become a tradition. But again I think the limit has been reached this time. When burning a candidate's poster causes damage to a Student Association notlceboard, students have really gone too far. Perhaps they should have stopped to think what they were doing to other people's, and the Association's, property, before they began.

Certain students, especially some of the so-called student leaders, should be somewhat ashamed of their shabby, dishonest behaviour.

Rose Booth.