This week, nominations for the SGA President and Vice President of Operations close. Multiple tickets are vying for the “hot seat” of leader of the student body. Last year, I put my hat in the ring for an election which heavily favored Jon Darlak. After candidates dropping out and weird constitutional situations, I ended up losing in an election runoff to current SGA President Jason Chlus and his running mate Ryan Tom — and then did not end up on the SGA cabinet. Still, I learned a lot from running my campaign.
First: running mate selection. My running mate, Alex Murtagh, and I came from very similar backgrounds. Both of our main involvements on campus were as executive board members of The Stute. While this was one of our main advantages (actually knowing what the heck IS going on around campus), it didn’t lend to knowing a lot of different people. If you aspire to lead the SGA during a school-wide vote, have a diverse ticket which touches multiple different aspects of campus.
Second: actually campaigning. I kind of dropped the ball big time on this one. Freshman year, one of the SGA tickets knocked on my dorm room door and said, “Vote for us, here’s some candy.” Not knowing anything about the student government, I voted for them. Eventually, they won. When elections finally opened and we began dorm storming, another ticket had already gotten there with their full-color flyers, as opposed to our “cheap” black and white flyers. We were outdone, and didn’t even try. We just slid our flyers under the doors. No knocking or introductions. Then, the runoff election was during Thanksgiving break. That’s a damper.
Finally (and most importantly): knowing people. I’m a bit full of myself, so I’ll plainly state that I believe that I had the strongest platform and was among the most knowledgeable of campus events out of those running. However, having the strongest policies barely does anything in securing victory. It’s all about knowing the most people — and those people having a positive perception of you.
I’m a brother of Lodge — one of the smallest fraternities on campus. My opponents were brothers of Sigma Phi Epsilon and Kappa Sigma — some of the biggest fraternities on campus. Aside from the number of people in each fraternity, each one has more “friends of friends” to draw upon. Every one of those people has their mind made up. It’s less people you can campaign to, and it’s a hard gap to make up. Previous winners were extremely well-known and liked on campus.
Furthermore, none of the questions asked during the debate or by The Stute aimed at actually questioning policy. Almost every question was a soft ball. Nothing about what they’ve done in the past, nothing on hard issues. Still, “What would you do differently that the current president?” was the stumper question for the leading ticket. Not anything topical, out of left field, or a just plain difficult question. If policy was actually important — and not just a contest of favorites — questions would be difficult and ask for stances on difficult topics. This year, I’ve taken charge of The Stute’s efforts to interview the presidential candidates, so I hope everyone will enjoy more policy-based, hard-hitting answers from the candidates. My platform focused on impactful changes that could be accomplished realistically within a year. Let’s see actual impact, not lofty goals.
I don’t want to provide any comments yet on the candidates as I haven’t finished interviewing all of them and digesting their platforms. However, from my perspective, both campaigns seem to know similar amounts of people. I’m excited for a campaign where policy may actually make a difference in who is the sole representative of the student body to the administration.
Let’s see what these bright-eyed sophomores can do before they learn the harsh realities of Stevens.
Be First to Comment