One-day voting works

In yesterday’s editorial, Technician missed the facts. I can only assume this is from failure to conduct interviews and do proper research as a journalist should do.

It seems Technician is more interested in trying to attack Student Government on something than to understand the issues to present a proper argument. This was seen in Monday’s viewpoint as well. As a note, the press secretary is nothing new — it has been around for years, and every respectable organization has one to help get information out.

So, let me present the side of the argument Technician missed. Since we have gone to 24 hour voting, with the exception of the “year of the pirate,” voter turnout has increased. Every single year! The numbers do not lie! When Student Government does 48 hour voting numbers go down. More people vote in 24 hours! Just look at the poor turnout for Leader of the Pack elections this past year — around 4 percent.

I was the original sponsor of the bill that changed it to 24 hour voting. Why did we do this? We did this because students wanted it! Students did not want to see Student Government candidates out there campaigning any more than they had to. It has nothing to do with money. It has to do with “harassing students.” This decision was made from talking with students and getting broad student opinions.

Twenty-four hour voting not only drives a higher voter turnout, but also reduces the time candidates are in the students’ faces asking for votes. Why would you change this system?

Critique the things that need to be critiqued! Do your job and be a true investigative journalist! If you are going to present an argument find out the facts! Let the facts determine what should be done, instead trying to write a negative piece. You owe that to us, the avid readers!

Adam Comptonsenior, agricultural business management

‘Average Joes’ exist on all sides of political spectrum

Chad Rhoades’ Thursday column (“Be wary of the ‘average Joe'”) names three people who are supposedly “elites” dressed up as “average Joes.” On the surface, this seems worthwhile. However, the three people Rhoades chose were President Obama, Vice President Biden and Michael Moore. This makes me think Rhoades only wrote this article to appeal to conservatives.

In fact, the Republicans have just as many fake “average Joes” as Democrats. In the interest of being “fair and balanced,” I feel it necessary to demonstrate this. For a recent example, Sarah Palin has been using her newfound notoriety to say things that assure the Republican base that she is “one of them,” while at the same time supporting energy policy that would make any ExxonMobil executive (certainly one of the “elites”) salivate.

Go back a decade, and we see George W. Bush, Yale-educated by way of his father’s legacy, selling himself as a “Texan cowboy” to get elected, only then to turn around and enrich Halliburton, Blackwater and the rest of the military-industrial complex (all “elites”) at the expense of real progress for all Americans. There are many more examples that are not here for the sake of brevity.

My point is: falsely advertising yourself as a “populist” or “average Joe” is nothing new in American politics, and thus it is completely and totally asinine to claim that one side of the debate is completely guilty of it.

Justin Smithsenior, computer science

Recycling a collaborative effortThank you for supporting the WE Recycle program in the Viewpoint’s editorial Nov. 16. However, I did want to offer clarification because the article stated funding sources and program ownership that was misleading.The Viewpoint stated the University Sustainability Office was responsible for WRR funding. Although these two offices collaborate frequently, they are two separate offices within Facilities Operations and therefore manage separate program funds. Both offices work toward a common vision of making N.C. State a leader in sustainability.Recycling efforts on campus take teamwork and result in a synergistic outcome where the needs of the University are met by combining the skills, time, and talent of various organizations. As an example, WE Recycle was an idea brought forward by a student, who worked diligently to make his idea a reality by partnering with the appropriate University organizations and departments. Currently, WE Recycle is a joint effort among the Caldwell Fellows program, Wolfpack Sports Marketing and University Athletics, and is managed by the Waste Reduction and Recycling Office. The program sponsors share time, resources and contribute funding every year to facilitate this service for Wolfpack tailgaters.When considering expansion of the WE Recycle program, we not only look at the costs associated with expansion, which might be difficult during these tough budgetary periods, but also at the expansion sites themselves. For instance, the RBC Center and the State Fair parking lots are not managed by the University, and we have to take this into account with any expansion we make with the program. Recycling expansion into other University owned athletic facilities, such as Reynolds Coliseum, are intended as resources and funds become available. Thanks for recycling — Go Pack!!! Analis Fulghumoutreach coordinator, waste reduction/recycling