Ask a random set of students and I would bet you that only half of them would be able to name two of the four presidential candidates.

The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Student Association elections went down as we all hoped they would: there was only one infraction and it was nothing significant enough to make anyone question the results or say that one side cheated. No one could be happier than me.

Except that I still see some flaws in the way elections are held here. Let’s be honest, elections at UWM are somewhat of a joke.

I find it hard to believe that students on campus really knew much about the candidates. Ask a random set of students and I would bet you that only half of them would be able to name two of the four presidential candidates. Ask the same set of students who they voted for to hold at-large Senate seats and I bet even less could name three.

Given this information, perhaps it is time to look at reforming the student elections in ways that could inform the electorate more.

One thing the SA might want to consider is having an independent group create flyers and distribute them throughout campus informing students more about the candidates. These flyers could show us the differences between each candidate, rather than having a student body assume that their choices are a host of people who tout the same things.

They could also place in these flyers the top senatorial candidates from each party that those parties wish to see elected in the at-large category. If this task seems too daunting for the SA to undertake (especially with trying to remain impartial), perhaps a certain number of flyers could be made by each party using funds from the SA and distributed throughout campus by the parties themselves.

Another thing the SA could do to improve awareness of potential representatives is to have a “Meet your Candidates” week in the Union. Candidates could submit times when they would be able to meet constituents, sit in a designated space in the Union with some information about their candidacy and answer any questions students might have for them.

This certainly would help with senatorial candidates running for at-large positions, as they do not have a specially designated time to debate each other about the issues like the presidential and vice presidential candidates do.

One final possibility that should be investigated by the SA is the idea of a run-off for the presidential election. While I do not doubt that President-elect Prahl deserves her place as leader of the executive wing (coming in with 39.9 percent of the vote), it’s important to remember that a majority of those who voted did not vote for her.

I do not bring this up because I wish to bring grievances with the future Prahl administration. In fact, I hope nothing but the best for her work in the Student Association. What I do hope to bring up, however, is the idea of legitimacy — that whoever is elected SA President is elected by a majority vote of the student body.

It is with these ideas in mind that I hope to bring about more discussion about what can be done within the Student Association. A more legitimate student body to represent us starts with knowing who the candidates are and making sure that the majority of the student body finds that they were elected legitimately.

> Comments