Last year, Jared Axelrod and Juliana Guzman successfully won their bid for executive while running with a “slate.” A slate is a group of like-minded candidates, running for a variety of elected positions, who align themselves with each other; it’s a way for candidates to shore up as many votes as possible.
Slates function as small-time political parties. The unspoken reasoning for having slates is that they garner more votes for elected positions with less visibility than the executive – positions like those on the Programs Finance Committee and student Senate. A person who votes for one executive ticket, for example, is more likely to vote for student Senate candidates running on the same slate as theirs; it simplifies the process to the point where candidates running for student Senate or PFC seats don’t need to know much about their potential duties as student leaders.
Slates are a terrible trend. The problem with a slate is that it is a like-minded group that, if elected into power, would be less likely to challenge the ideals of the group. If all members of a slate win their elections, it’s essentially like having one person running all of student government. This is not how a democratic government should function.
In the past years, student leaders have begun running on slates with regularity, and they are generally the people who win, regardless of how deserving they are. Lest the student population forget, disrespectful Sen. Nate Gulley ran on Axelrod and Guzman’s slate last year.
This year, the trend continues – with a twist. Instead of merely one slate, which is how it has traditionally been in the past, there are three slates that have been announced this year: Emily McLain and Chii-San SunOwen; Jonathan Rosenberg and Avital Ostfield; Sara Hamilton and Athan Papailiou.
This is an improvement over the past, when there has only been one. Thus, none of the executive tickets or candidates running on a slate should be discounted too soon if they are part of one.
Most slates are relatively shallow, anyway. All the candidates need to do is stick to their vague political talking points, because it is easier to be a member of a group than remain an individual. Further, slates only entrench power among the people who have been involved in the ASUO in the past. Despite the candidates’ call for transparency and accountability, slates tend not to promote these ambitions.
Nick Schultz, a candidate for Programs Finance Committee Seat 3, was correct when he said that individuals are more accountable to voters than slate candidates, and if he won on a slate ticket he would feel more beholden to the presidential candidate than he would to the students.
When students start reviewing the voter’s pamphlet, they should be skeptical of all candidates. They should look at the candidates’ knowledge, promises and abilities, not their slate affiliation. Simply voting for someone because he or she is aligned with an executive candidate is not the way to vote.