The Burger Gazette

Open Editorial

Back to Article
Back to Article

Open Editorial

Photo Credit 1

Photo Credit 1

Photo Credit 1

Joshua Christensen, Guest Writer

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.


Email This Story






Recently, there has been some passionate discussion in the Williamsburg schools regarding an opinion article published in Williamsburg’s The Burger Gazette. The article titled “Petition to Change Williamsburg Voting Policy”, authored by Keslee Peterson, advocates that incoming freshmen should be allowed to participate in student body elections. The article also recommends that outgoing seniors should not participate in student body officer elections. While the first point seems to be generally accepted, the second point has faced some fierce opposition.

After reading many of the comments on Keslee’s article, I believe that some clarifications are necessary. The truth isn’t being represented accurately. I’m writing this article to clarify what I interpret to be Keslee’s argument and to educate readers about the straw man fallacy.

Let’s start with clarifying the argument that Keslee makes in her article. Keslee is arguing that seniors shouldn’t vote. The premise underlying her argument is that seniors won’t be personally affected by their vote, and being affected by the outcome of the vote is essential for one to have the right to vote. Why is this the case?

It ultimately can be boiled down to the principles of accountability and responsibility. A moral vote is held when the accountability and responsibility of the voter are equivalent to the “say” that that voter has in the election. In other words, a person’s representation should be proportionate to how they are affected by the outcome of the election. A person who should vote in an election should be the same person who corrects the election if things go wrong. This principle is demonstrated in the functioning of our own American government. If an American president is making significant mistakes that affect their ability to do their job, then it’s the people’s responsibility (through Congress) to begin the impeachment process. The people of the USA voted the person in, and in effect, have the obligation to vote the person out. This idea seems hardly controversial but seemed to be frequently misinterpreted by readers of Keslee’s article as manifested by several of the comments. Consider the following comments:

“They (outgoing seniors) are the students with the literal most experience at Williamsburg out of all non-alumni students. Most of them are committed Williamsburg students who want to see the school succeed and have learned to love said school.”

“Ok.. maybe we should make a petition to take away the vote for senior citizens over 80 in the US presidential election. They might not live to see the end of the term, so let’s take away their right to vote, given to them by the constitution. Seniors aren’t Canadians. They still go to this school, and to say they are “foreigners” is kinda silly.

Both of these comments fail to address the argument made by Keslee; that representation should be proportionate to accountability. Keslee is asserting that Canadians should not vote in American elections not because they are unwise, not because they are foreigners or even because they don’t love America–she is saying they shouldn’t vote because they are not US citizens and therefore will not be impacted by the outcome of the vote in the same way as US citizens

Likewise, using this same logical construct, she is arguing that seniors should not have the right to vote. Keslee is saying seniors shouldn’t have the right to vote not because she believes that seniors are unwise, are foreigners, or don’t love the school– but because they are seniors– and will not be affected by the outcome of their vote.

One commenter compares Keslee’s argument to taking away the right to vote from senior citizens.  However, — a more accurate metaphor would be granting the right to vote to former Americans that have moved to foreign countries and have become citizens of these countries.  When seen in this more accurate context, Keslee’s argument is clearly more compelling.

Likewise, using this same logical construct, she is arguing that seniors should not have the right to vote. Keslee is saying seniors shouldn’t have the right to vote not because she believes that seniors are unwise, are foreigners, or don’t love the school– but because they are seniors– and will not be affected by the outcome of their vote.”

Keslee’s argument is logically sound. However, many of the comments to the negative fail to demonstrate the same logical consistency.  What is most perplexing is that none of the commenters offer a satisfactory answer to Keslee’s fundamental premise about where the right to vote is derived from. Instead, they seem preoccupied with Keslee’s imaginary claim (she never said anything like this in the article) that seniors aren’t wise or don’t love the school. This is manifested by many of the commenters reiterating the point that seniors love the school and are wise– a point that Keslee never contended in the first place.  Consider this comment;

“Hello, having grown up in Williamsburg, and having my oldest brother attend the first ever online Williamsburg class, I have had the honor to witness Williamsburg grow. Without fail, the Seniors always know what’s best for the school.

Seniors are awesome! This doesn’t mean they are perfect or always know what’s best.  It’s also noteworthy to consider that not all seniors have experience with Williamsburg for four years; some may have just attended the school for two years or less. Senior students may not even be older either. Part of the magic of Williamsburg is that kids can challenge themselves at their own pace– and many choose to graduate early.

It goes without saying that seniors, in general, tend to have the most experience with the school, however, I disagree with the commenter that this experience gives them the right to participate in elections for officers that will govern AFTER they have left school.

The right to vote should be proportionate to how the outcome of the vote affects the voter– not proportionate to the wisdom, experience, or love for the school of the person voting. That idea, if true, raises several questions.

If the right to vote is proportionate to wisdom, and if wisdom increases with age, then should all alumni be able to vote? Or teachers, for that matter? It also follows that the older the alumni the more experienced and smarter they will be, and likewise, the greater the right to vote. What about one year after graduating? What about two? What about five? Should alumni and mentor votes be weighted more because they are older and more experienced? What about a freshman that loves the school more than most seniors? Should they be able to cast a vote that matches their passion for the school? Should students take a wisdom test that qualifies them for voting? What if a person leaves the school after one year, or even one semester, but still loves the school? Should they be given the right to vote? What if the person who leaves the school loves it more than some of the seniors? What if they are more intelligent? The questions that would need to be answered are countless if graduating seniors are allowed to vote (because they will be alumni when the presidency serves the student body).

If I were to propose a constitutional amendment that gave senior citizens in Canada multiple votes in American elections proportional to their age, wisdom, or experience, I would be laughed at. I would be laughed at because the proposal is preposterous.

It doesn’t matter how old or wise the Canadian is– they still aren’t impacted by the outcome of their vote– and so they still should not be granted the right to vote. This is the argument made by Keslee, an argument that I believe wholeheartedly to be logical and true. It comes back to that principle of accountability and responsibility. Young or old, experienced or inexperienced, likes or dislikes the school– at Williamsburg, everyone should get a vote. We should deal out the responsibility proportionately among those attending the school and being affected by its policies. If a student is no longer part of the school for any reason, whether they graduated or moved on, then they should respectfully relinquish that right. They have been represented while they were attending the school; now it’s their time to let other be represented.

Now I informed you at the beginning of this letter that I would discuss straw man fallacies. Straw man fallacies occur when a person sets up an argument (or straw so to speak), claims or implies that the argument is their opponent’s (even if it wasn’t), and then destroys that argument rather than address the argument that was actually made by their opponent. This fallacy was used frequently in the comments section below Keslee’s article. Many implied that Keslee didn’t like or respect seniors by restating how seniors should be liked and respected. While I believe this was unintentional– the straw man fallacy is something we should all be wary of. It’s a seemingly logical fallacy that is easy to accidentally commit but is both unethical and unprofessional.

I hope that this article has clarified Keslee’s points and cleared some confusion. I want to reiterate that I am not anti-senior or anti-anyone as a matter of fact. I have worked with Keslee in the past and I believe her beliefs on this voting policy mirror mine. We want the truth to be respectfully represented and respected. This is a core element of the belief of leadership that we all share here at Williamsburg.

In the end, I believe this an issue that everybody can come together on. It’s an issue I believe can unite both seniors, eighth graders, and everyone in between. Seniors can still participate in elections by endorsing candidates and otherwise using the influence they have. Eighth graders can exercise the right to vote that they deserve. Keslee’s proposal ultimately teaches leadership in meaningful ways to everybody involved. Her proposal follows elevated ethics. This change would be a powerful step forward in the direction of the principles that Williamsburg is built on.

We need not only to make Keslee’s proposed changes to our student body presidency voting policy, but we need to make them as soon as we can. Consider this quote from Martin Luther King, “The time is always right to do what is right.” We don’t put a delay on justice because it’s inconvenient. According to my knowledge, the technology that makes this school possible also makes it possible to make these changes happen in a timely matter, this semester.  Sign the petition in Keslee’s article to make your voice heard!

PS. If any of you would like to discuss this article with me feel free to email me through canvas or leave a message below. I will do my best to get to all of you and to represent the truth. Thank you for reading!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
14 Comments

14 Responses to “Open Editorial”

  1. Bradley Bourgeous on March 29th, 2018 9:44 am

    Wow Josh, this is a great article! You clearly state why people who believe that seniors should vote is not the right option. You discuss all the main points that the opposition have and give amazing reasons why your opinion is the better option. I love that it is so easy to understand.

  2. Sydney A. on March 29th, 2018 10:25 am

    Thanks for writing this article! I had some hesitations about signing the petition before, but after I read this I was fully convinced that I should most certainly add my name. Well done.

  3. Camden Hatch on March 29th, 2018 10:34 am

    Those reading this article and this comment will make a decision to change the representation for the better, or keep it mediocre. I would encourage the path of elevated ethics when determining which petition sheet to place your name on: The route of improvement, even if it may feel painful or unjust in the moment, is the correct one. If seniors read this and then petition to not prohibit senior voting, they would seem to exude from their actions that the real good and spirit of the school is not quite as important as their want to vote and would seem to nullify the character and virtue other students look to them for.

  4. Samuel Hargrove on March 29th, 2018 3:20 pm

    Hey Camden, Thanks for commenting! I think we all want what’s best for this school, we just have different ways of doing that. No matter what side you fall on, let’s use our elevated ethics and build each other up, we’re all on the same team here.

  5. Keslee Peterson on March 29th, 2018 4:39 pm

    Good point Samuel. This is a valuable topic that needs to be discussed. I don’t think anyone’s goal is to negatively impact Williamsburg.

  6. Tanner Hoyal on March 29th, 2018 11:04 am

    Josh, this makes total sense! Thanks for writing this.

  7. Korbin Peterson on March 29th, 2018 11:14 am

    HOLY COW JOSH! Man this is an amazing article! You put into words what I have trying to express sense Keslee released the article!

  8. Dallin Christensen on March 29th, 2018 11:23 am

    Great Article. I loved how clear this made the debate!

  9. Keslee Peterson on March 29th, 2018 4:43 pm

    Let it be known: I 100% agree with you Josh.

  10. Allen Hoggan on March 30th, 2018 10:18 am

    I would like to say two things.

    First, thank you for your insight and clarification.

    Second, I like how you brought in the teachers and alumni. I should think that graduated students shouldn’t vote as the haven’t had the time to get to know the students that are running for SBP. However, I think that letting teachers vote would be great! They know the students better than many of the students do! Their votes shouldn’t be weighted though, just like politicians votes aren’t weighted (even though they understand more than many of us).

  11. Tanner Hoyal on March 31st, 2018 9:46 am

    Allen, great points. But about teachers voting – I don’t know if that would work out. That way it would look like teachers are choosing favorites. It would end up creating lots of awkward situations, especially if two people from the same class are running against each other. Teachers should probably stay neutral, but that’s just my opinion. Anyways, Allen, great comment!

  12. Korbin Peterson on April 1st, 2018 5:52 pm

    Well voting is anonymous…

  13. Korbin Peterson on April 1st, 2018 5:55 pm

    I disagree with the notion of teachers voting for the STUDENT BODY presidency. It is even worse than having the seniors, or even alumni vote. It wouldn’t be the SBP anymore it would be the SB&MP (Student body and mentor Presidency) It is the STUDENT BODY PRESIDENCY. That means the student body votes and gets represented. Not the seniors, not the alumni, and most definitely not the teachers.

  14. Abby Hatch on April 3rd, 2018 9:59 pm

    If the teachers voted, then it wouldn’t be an accurate representation of the student body. It’s a student body presidency, after all.

    Two reasons why the original petition should pass:

    1) the right to vote is not determined by the wisdom, etc. of a given student, but whether they ARE a student for the year they are voting for*. 8th graders are students for the year they are voting for, while seniors are not. The student body presidency would represent the student body accurately if only students voted.

    2) It is not just to vote for something in which you can vote without the risk or consequence of voting. It will not affect the seniors – it’s for “fun”. Whether the vote would be for the better or worse, it would affect others without affecting them.

    *if this was the case (if it was based on wisdom,, then dumb, inexperienced people wouldn’t have the right to vote.

    I agree that the mentors have experience, but the student body presidency is to represent the student body, not the whole of Williamsburg.

At The Burger Gazette, we review all comments before they are published on our website to ensure that all comments respect the honor code of Williamsburg Academy. Thank you for your patience. If your are not a Williamsburger or related to a Williamsburger then please do not post comments on this site. Thank you.




Navigate Left
  • Open Editorial

    Letters to the Editor

    Inside the Mind of a Student: The True Representation Petition

  • Open Editorial

    Academics

    Farewell to Mr. Reynolds: Quiet Confident Optimism

  • Open Editorial

    Burger Universe

    The Presidency

  • Open Editorial

    Recent Articles

    Tanner Hoyal

  • Open Editorial

    Cartoons

    Student Share

  • Open Editorial

    Recent Articles

    Will Tiger Woods Ever Be as Good as Before?

  • Open Editorial

    Blog Spotlight

    Quitting his job to travel the world- story of a Williamsburg mentor

  • Features

    Ketch-Up W19 #2

  • Open Editorial

    Alumni

    Burger Beginnings to a Globe Trotting Nanny

  • Recent Articles

    Yenkei

Navigate Right
The student news site of Williamsburg Learning Schools
Open Editorial