OUR VIEW: SGA elections lack emphasis on platform points and research

<p></p>

AT ISSUE: Slates focus more on marketing themselves than on researching platform point feasibility.

Before the Student Government Association election season began, our staff planned out our coverage for the two weeks. We had originally planned on endorsing a slate.

After we interviewed each one, we realized we couldn’t confidently give an endorsement. Both Summit and 18 had flaws. Both slates had failed to do all of the necessary research to adequately answer our questions.

But above all, we were frustrated with the nature of the student government campaign season. The slates spent the two short weeks trying to win over the student body’s approval by putting their names in front of people and trying to convince them of how personable each individual on the slate was.

Most of their campaign tactics left out their platform points, which should be the most important part of the election process. It ended up being more about popularity, rather than platform point quality and feasibility.

Check out which platform points are feasible.

For example, 18 created a music video for themselves, in which they didn’t mention a single one of their platform points. The song, however, was catchy and was stuck in our heads for days.

Summit, too, was guilty of pushing irrelevant content on their social media sites. They created a BuzzFeed quiz called, “Which Summit slate member are you most similar to?” Once again, the quiz had nothing to do with their platform points. It instead asked questions like, “What Muncie pizza place are you calling on a Friday night?”

Platform points don’t seem to win the elections. Instead, it’s based off of things like who can show the most “cardinal pride.” The slates’ Instagram feeds are filled with pictures of them going to Late Nite, visiting various campus organizations and attending games. They make sure students know they are everywhere on campus.

Diversity is another buzz word the slates don’t hesitate to use to their advantage when branding themselves. During the All-Slate Debate, the slates talked about diversity in detail. However, discussion on the actual diversity platform points was limited.

While Summit has three diversity-related initiatives, 18 only has one. This didn’t stop them from using the word frequently.

This isn’t the first year that the slates have focused their efforts on marketing themselves. Over the past several years, SGA candidates have gotten better and better at using social media and whatever tools are at their disposal to win the election.

The problem this year is that both slates’ highly marketed brands aren’t backed up by substantial platform points.

Many of 18’s platform points aren’t very specific. They sound more like an overall vision than an actual plan. Summit, on the other hand, has some less realistic points, like dead week. Past slates have talked about implementing a dead week, and it still has not happened. Though this could be because those previous slates weren’t elected, some administrators weren’t that confident in this platform point either.

Both slates still have more research to do on all of their points.

Regardless of how much pull SGA has on campus, elections are important. The executive board is paid for its work — the president of SGA receives money equivalent to full tuition.

The election shouldn’t be based on popularity if that much money is on the line. Students need to take a step back from social media and check out the platform points before they vote today.

Atlas did a great job of implementing its platform points while building a relationship with students. Hopefully, whoever wins Tuesday will recognize they have some work to do before they are ready to take office. 

Here's how to vote in the SGA election.

Comments

More from The Daily






This Week's Digital Issue


Loading Recent Classifieds...