I would just like to let you guys know that I fully agree with the opinions that have been put in the paper pertaining to student elections.
We had an amazing turnout for the number of people voting compared to previous years, but barely anyone showed up to the debate. Why is that? Yes, it was at an inconvenient time. I skipped a class just to go. But what other reasons? Not many people knew about it in the first place is one. Personally, they should have had more than just one debate, and yes, elections should have been more than two weeks long.
If more people had gone to the debate, they would have seen just how dramatic of a difference there was in experience between the opponents. I won’t name names, but two runners were completely unqualified. The runners against those two had the experience. They’ve got projects already in the works, and had successfully pulled off other projects and policy changes to help the students and school.
They needed more time to finish other projects, though, or at least higher positions that would help them succeed. But they lost to what? More Club Rushes on the Diagonal? Seriously? Is there a way to do the elections over again? Maybe have a debate in each building and the teachers dismiss those that attend the debates? An incentive to attend and be more fully aware of what’s going on and who’s running? Maybe extra credit in the class you’re skipping? Students need to be more aware of who’s qualified and who’s not before they just “vote blindly to get out of an awkward situation.”
Junior art major