Students have mixed reactions to VP debacle

In an e-mail sent early Friday morning to supporters from his own campaign last year, Weinstein said that he would “like to offer [his] absolute support for Mike Weinberg for USG Vice President.” Weinstein also said that USG president-elect Connor Diemand-Yauman ’10 “initially asked Mike to be on a ticket with him, but has decided to remain impartial, publicly, because he is unopposed,” a statement that Diemand-Yauman and the USG said was not true.

Diemand-Yauman and members of the USG felt that the e-mails might sway the results of the vice presidential election. The Senate decided Sunday night that though Weinstein had subsequently retracted his statements, his response was inadequate. Three more e-mails were sent on Monday, two from senior elections manager Braeden Kepner-Kraus ’10 to the student body and one from Weinstein to the original recipients of his endorsement e-mail.

In response to the controversy, Kepner-Kraus declared a re-vote for the USG vice-presidential election on Monday night. The re-vote was then postponed because of a Senate challenge and subsequently overturned.

Tim Koby ’11 said he didn’t see a problem with Weinstein’s endorsement of Weinberg. “I feel like at least people at Princeton shouldn’t be as easily swayed just by someone endorsing a candidate,” he noted.

Some students said they feel the incident has snowballed out of control, especially since they were not informed of it until receiving statements from the USG.

“I thought it was a pretty minor thing, and I don’t get why there was so much fuss about it,” Ziran Xiao ’11 explained. “I actually don’t understand why there were so many e-mails,” he noted, adding that his vote would not have changed in the case of a re-vote.

Sachi Lake '11 also said that she feels the issue has been given too much attention. “It started out fine, but I think it’s kind of been blown out of proportion,” she said.

Ultimately, several students agreed that the entire affair would be harmful to both candidates. Alana D’Alfonso ’11 explained that “even if [Weinstein’s] intentions were good, the result was bad for both vice president candidates. It reflects badly on Weinberg even if he is a good candidate.”

Carl Thompson ’11 seconded D’Alfonso. “I feel like it’s a shame that it happened, and it put a lot of controversy on two candidates who really did nothing to deserve what they’re going through,” he said.

Some said they felt even if the re-vote had been held, it would not have remedied the problem.

“I don’t know honestly if it matters much. I think the damage has already been done,” D’Alfonso said, explaining that she did not believe that people’s preferences would have changed had they been asked to vote a second time.

Lake noted that voter turnout for the re-vote would have been diminished “because those that have already decided their [vote] will [not] vote again,” she said.