Last spring student voters went to the polls and elected none other than Rammy “Rambo” Salem ’10 to the S.A. presidency. Those with a sense of history will recall that the film character Rambo, artfully played by Sylvester Stallone, rampaged through the Pacific Northwest, his brain short-circuited by the horrors of Vietnam and a manipulating colonel. Our own Rambo is no lunatic on the loose, but since assuming the top spot in student government, his behavior has been no less combative than his film doppelganger. This much, at least, is clear from the early meetings of the S.A..

Members of a bewildered, at times indignant Assembly first considered Resolution 4 and its “Community Clause” last Thursday. Drafted by Rambo himself, the document calls for the extension of limited voting rights to unelected gallery members. Under the current proposal, any undergraduate with three appearances at S.A. meetings would be entitled to vote in the pool of students . Their collective voice would be worth two votes on body resolutions – enough to overturn a simple majority, given the S.A.’s odd number of voting members. The gallery’s two votes would not, however, apply to administrative or budgetary measures.

On first glance, Resolution 4 might strike you as sly, silly or sleep inducing. But if you read a little further, you’ll find it to be a slippery political move for the books. I say this because of the remarkable difficulty I encountered in determining what, if anything, is wrong with it.

At last week’s meeting, Assembly members raised a host of concerns in a successful attempt to table the issue until Sept. 10. Among these was the charge that granting only limited voting rights to the gallery contemptibly pegs them as a group of second-class citizens. This is an argument, sure enough, but for what side? If limiting voting rights is the problem with Resolution 4, then the simple answer would be to extend broader, or even full, voting privileges to the gallery. Problem solved.

But this is not all that challengers find problematic. What if, as some intimate, the gallery becomes overloaded with pushers of a certain viewpoint? Let’s call this the ‘biased gallery’ thesis. Certainly we don’t want a group of radicals storming meetings and sending controversial measures over to the opposition. No doubt some groups in this mobile minority will send more and better troops to meetings than their counterparts in the latent majority. These loafs are opinionated enough to weigh in on issues via an online survey (provided completion comes with a chance to win $20 at the Cornell Store), but probably won’t be turning out to S.A meetings in this life.

So does voting “no” on Resolution 4 because of the biased gallery thesis ensure an important check on an overzealous (and, at this point, imaginary) mobile minority? Or does it, as I believe, represent an accidental indictment of representative government generally? We do not call groups biased or radical when we are a part of them. No, we use these terms to marginalize those with whom we disagree — a useful political tactic, sure, but not valid grounds for the denial of voting rights. Furthermore, on the district, state and national levels we do not cancel Election Day; neither do we forego referendum politics because of the mobile minority. Rather, their zeal becomes a call to political action on all sides. So what’s the difference in the S.A.?

Well, you might say, Cornell is different because of its small electorate and general apathy toward campus politics. The effects of a large body politic, therefore, are unavailable to smooth out what would surely be a rough year of mobile minority domination if Resolution 4 were to pass. To this end, opponents have dreamed up a “lone gallery member” scenario: if only one student is present in the gallery his vote would, absurdly, be worth double that of an elected voting member, and would thereby have the power to overpower a simple majority. Again, this is an argument all right, but for what side? This fearsome potentiality ought to be a call to arms, as Rambo has said, for greater student involvement in the Assembly, not the rejection of Resolution 4. And how might we achieve that? Well, the answer seems obvious to at least this armchair philosopher — provide students with a regular opportunity to move some earth in the Cornell political landscape. Do it through continual voting rights of some kind. The S.A. could create a referendum procedure or, you guessed it, provide the gallery with voting rights.

If I haven’t yet convinced you of the beauty, or at least the slipperiness, of Resolution 4, perhaps my conclusion will. S.A. members are now faced with a tough decision beyond weighing the impersonal arguments above, which I ask you now, for a moment, to forget. The broadening of voting rights to more people at more times is, upon first glance, ‘good’. My speaking in generalities might be unsettling, but it does show that we tend not to cringe at phrases like “voting rights were extended” or “community members now have a louder, more effective voice in their own government and destiny”. Your average S.A. member, however, may see things differently.

In her mind she earned the right to vote in a hard fought election and has developed some legislative and caucusing expertise. Enter: pride. To her, the possible, if improbable, case of her majority, perhaps tie-breaking, vote being not just blocked, but reversed by the gallery is unacceptable. Enter: self-interest. This silly resolution has given rights to the unworthy and created more ways to lose. More ways to win, sure, but in the instant case, one big way to lose! The nerve of these amateurs!

Hopefully this much is clear: Careful, well-reasoned arguments won’t stop Resolution 4, but the pride and self-interest of the S.A. just may. Regardless, my salute goes to Rambo for marching in to mortal combat against such protectionism and doing something to spur student interest.

Andrew Daines is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He may be reached at adaines@cornellsun.com. The Right Stuff appears alternate Fridays this semester.