As a resident of Babcock Hall, I was astounded to learn that all three of Babcock’s lounges will remain dry this year. This means even if over 21, no one is allowed to drink in the lounge.† The decision was made through a simple process of voting whereby all residents cast votes for their preferences ó wet lounges or dry lounges. As usual, the process of voting was made highly arbitrary owing to an unfair vote-counting procedure which assumes you voted for dry lounges if you did not vote at all.
Non-voters are either indifferent between dry or wet lounges or they wish to not reveal their preferences. In either case, to assume that they have a preference for a dry lounge violates the integrity of individual voting rights. Imagine what would happen if all non-voters counted as votes for Republicans in the upcoming national elections! Not only would we have rid ourselves of democracy, we would also see Republicans win elections every time.
Similarly, it is quite difficult to get a wet lounge considering that a lot of people are indifferent or callous to voting. Moreover, the assumption that non-voters favor dry lounges is farthest from grounds of reason.
The process of voting for deciding drinking privileges in common lounges indicates that students should be allowed to drink in common lounges if that is what the majority of students want. However, the process of voting is definitely not yielding the desired results. Those who do not vote usually do not care about drinking privileges in lounges; thus, their votes should not be counted.
Assuming them to be in favor of dry lounges not only yields unfair results but also lies in conflict with the very purpose of voting. In my opinion, it would be more appropriate to cancel the voting process instead of casting votes for non-voters on their behalf.