This year’s Student Government Association (SGA) Executive Election presents four tickets, one more than last year. These four tickets made for an especially exciting campaign season — BDA, CMW, RRE and TKT all presented thoughtful ideas in their platforms and together bring a wide range of experiences and passions to the student body.
The Newswire interviewed each ticket in addition to moderating a public debate and reviewing their platforms and qualifications. Based on the performances of each ticket, the Newswire has decided to endorse BDA. This decision was based on a predetermined scoring system and entailed careful consideration of all the aforementioned factors. In addition, this endorsement does not reflect the opinion of one editor but rather eight members of the editorial staff.
Below are the official evaluations of each ticket in terms of professionalism, balance, passion and feasibility, as well as an overall grade that represents the average of their combined scores.
Professionalism encompasses not only how the tickets conducted themselves during the interview and debate but also how they prepared and presented their platforms. Ultimately, BDA emerged on top. Their platform was well-presented and well-researched. In addition, during the interview and debate, the ticket members were personable and spoke with confidence about all of their policy points, regardless of the person whose ideas they represented. CMW likewise carried themselves well, but their platform was not as well-researched or detailed, earning them a slightly lower grade.
RRE and TKT earned lower scores for similar reasons. Both tickets lacked consistency in research across their platforms, and members of both tickets did not seem adequately prepared for the interviews or debate. RRE also did not seem engaged with each other or other tickets during the debate.
The SGA Executives run as a team, and the winning ticket must govern as a team of three equal partners while representing the student body. For this reason, we define balance as a shared vision that includes diverse ideas, backgrounds, experiences and passions. BDA exhibited the most balance of any group. This was particularly shown in their ability to build on each other’s points and meaningfully share speaking time in the interview and debate. They also covered a wide range of involvements that they could readily discuss, meaning they could represent and reach the most number of students across campus.
CMW, TKT and RRE earned lower scores for various reasons. CMW’s platform does demonstrate a diversity of ideas and areas of outreach, but we do not feel that they present enough diversity in terms of involvements and experiences across campus. TKT focused on just two ideas during the interview and debate in addition to their lack of diverse backgrounds. RRE earned the lowest score because it seemed that a single person and their ideas dominated the ticket. This was demonstrated in the platform itself, as well as how much ticket members spoke and how they interacted with each other in the interview and debate.
Passion concerns how the tickets communicate their investment in their platforms and what they are willing to do to execute their ideas. BDA were eager to share ideas and experiences, and they spoke not only about the ideas themselves but also why they were invested in them and why they would serve students. They demonstrated the most passion for serving the student body and fostering campus growth.
RRE also showed passion, but again, it seemed like the interests and passions of a single ticket member overpowered those of the other ticket members. The lack of engagement with each other during the interview and debate also pointed to a lack of shared vision.
On the other hand, while we do not doubt CMW or TKT have passion for their ideas or for the position, neither ticket communicated it effectively.
Feasibility is the likelihood of each ticket’s platforms being executed. BDA and RRE stand tied at the top in this category for slightly different reasons. BDA’s platform includes a large number of smaller, easily implemented projects, and they were able to explain how they would achieve them as well adapt them to make them more feasible. However, we would have liked to see more long-term, ambitious projects that they could begin and leave for others to continue. In terms of RRE’s platform, we cannot deny that many of their ideas are feasible, and we appreciate the thoroughness with which they explain their execution. That said, many of these proposals are already set to roll out regardless of who assumes the Executive position.
CMW’s platform identifies several issues across campus but does not elaborate on how to go about resolving them. Similarly, in the interview and debate, they recognized problems but did not address solutions. TKT seemed to lack the knowledge on how to execute many of their ideas, and their platform also did not adequately explain how to address the issues they identified. In combination with their lack of an ability to communicate passion, they did not seem to have the drive or the know-how to execute their ideas.
The Newswire commends all tickets for presenting their visions for enacting change on campus, and we encourage those not elected to continue to push for their implementation. We also encourage all students, no matter who they support, to thoroughly review all of the platforms before they cast their votes. The election begins this morning, Wednesday, Oct. 17, at 8 a.m. and concludes at 8 p.m. You can vote by clicking here.
This post was a collaborative effort of the entire Newswire editing staff.