Dear Source:
There are a few things that need to be said about the Op-Ed piece titled "What The Web Revealed (Or Didn’t) About The Delegate Race" that must be addressed. The first item that comes as a total shock and is completely baseless is the comment where the author states that only two out of the four candidates meet the legal requirement. The legal requirements to run for the position of Delegate to Congress are age, residency and citizenship. This would translate to several thousands of people eligible for the position, however, this does not necessarily mean just anyone should run as the job requires a specific skill set.
There are a few things that need to be said about the Op-Ed piece titled "What The Web Revealed (Or Didn’t) About The Delegate Race" that must be addressed. The first item that comes as a total shock and is completely baseless is the comment where the author states that only two out of the four candidates meet the legal requirement. The legal requirements to run for the position of Delegate to Congress are age, residency and citizenship. This would translate to several thousands of people eligible for the position, however, this does not necessarily mean just anyone should run as the job requires a specific skill set.
The other problem with this piece is the financial disclosure comment or failure on the part of certain candidates. Believe it or not an effective candidacy does not have to be the most costly. The invention of the internet has enabled an individual with a message, political or other, to address a mass audience with a minimum budget. There is also the volunteer(s) and their invaluable contribution toward a successful campaign; again at no cost to the candidate.
I can keep going on and on citing examples how an election does not have to cost plus or minus $200,000 dollars or more but what has escaped this novice political pundit is that a candidate who has received less than $5000 does not have to declare anything to the FEC. Compounding the fact, there are some candidates who refuse to take corporate money and in so doing support a democracy by the people for the people. So basically the author is going by zero fact and all assumption. The author also cites one website in his fact checking. One website? Really? He couldn’t have made the strenuous effort to drag the mouse and right clicked a few more times? Perhaps he could have dug a bit deeper or even contacted any of the candidates firsthand before offering his "opinion"…
You know what? Everyone has an opinion but perhaps before graciously offering one, a self proclaimed writer sitting from his precious perch should do some fact checking. The same applies to a periodical that allows fluff to be broadcast in any media format. There is a term common in journalism when a senior editor or reporter fails to fact check and print erroneous and damaging information; it’s called libel and any journalist worth his/her salt should know what the repercussions are and what ought to be done to prevent it. My suggestion would be to ban the author from ever printing anything again, a written apology to the candidates and a retraction to clear their reputations.
I also take umbrage with the comments made against the senior supervisor of elections, Mr. John Abramson. Mr. Abramson is an extraordinary person whose wealth of knowledge about the election system is invaluable and to even connote so much as an inkling that there is something wrong with the way he runs his department is inexcusable.
Technology as remarkable as it may be comes with a price and that price is paid when it fails. The website is down. So what? Websites never go down or get an update sometimes? Is there ever a right time for technology to fail? Tell you what, you there, Mr. North, do me a solid favor and please explain to me why 40 Million people in the United States back in 2003 experienced a massive blackout that covered a good proportion of the country. When you find the answer to that (and do your fact checking first) then maybe and just maybe you deserve to give Mr. Abramson a hard time. Until then, take a remedial course in journalism and the editor that allowed you to print this garbage with you.
So to sum up; if you’re not part of the solution then you’re part of the problem. You want pick a fight with a Virgin Islander and our political system then you should expect a not so polite response.
Insincerely yours,
Guillaume Mimoun
