Disappointment seems to be a common occurrence in this year's Student Government Association election. The slates disappointed us the first time when they weren't at the first nominating convention. They disappointed again when we got to see their platforms, riddled with vagueness and limited feasibility. The latest disappointment was the presidents' and vice-presidents' performances in Tuesday's debate. All four slate members seemed grossly ill-prepared behind the podium.
Campus Alliance presidential candidate Frank Hood seemed shaky in his opening arguments, though his momentum and confidence seemed to grow as the debate went on.
Andrews-Albritton '08 presidential candidate Mike Andrews started out confident, but as he continued, his inexperience showed. He seemed to lack the background understanding of the university governance system and administrators.
What started out as eight people having their hearts in the right place has turned into two sloppy campaigns. The presidents and vice presidents failed to work together representing their respective slates. They were disjointed and didn't know when to rely on one another. Each of the debaters failed to use the time allotted to them, speaking for 30 seconds when they could have had two minutes. This seems to illustrate a lack of preparation and a cohesive message.
Campus Alliance needs to step up and show the value of the slate's SGA experience, which could be the team's biggest asset.
Andrews-Albritton '08 needs to prove its slate can lead an organization they've only attended once as observers. The four members need to show a clear understanding of SGA, Ball State's administration and the campus as a whole.
These slates have one more chance to prove to the student body that they're the best choice: Monday's slate debate. If these slates can't pull together some unity, confidence and worthy messages by that time, they're not fit to lead the student body.