Wednesday was the end of elections for Student Union positions and block funding. We now believe that it would be a good time to discuss a very real problem with our student election system: the slate system.

This is not directed against any single slate. We had the benefit of meeting with the (U)nity slate for SU Exec on Sunday, and while we had certain issues regarding the clarity and specificity of their goals, we believe that they were very eager and are going to be great at representing the student body.

However, we believe at the same time that the slate system ultimately detracts from the ability of Wash. U. to have competitive elections. This is the second year in a row that SU Exec has run unopposed because a competing slate couldn’t be completed.

If there is only one candidate for a certain exec position, we do not believe that the group of people who can coalesce around that candidate should automatically be entitled to a position. This opinion appears to have been validated by the incredibly close vote tally for senior class council, which resulted in two winners from one slate and three from another.

Similarly, an individual candidate who wants to run should not feel as though he or she cannot because certain positions can’t be filled.

The current slate system also requires hopefuls to choose between candidates who are most qualified for the job and those who would help bring in votes for the slate based on popularity or other factors.

Instead of the slate system, we should try running on a single-candidate system. This would be harder on some of those running for executive positions because they would be forced to run individual campaigns and attempt to get support from a variety of sources. Even so, we believe that in the ultimate goal of competitive elections, having more people run for a position would be the best bet.

With the slate system, not all interested candidates can bring a slate together, and therefore are at a disadvantage if they choose to run, meaning that most of them don’t.

Competitive elections are a good thing. They reward the student we want the most and truly allow us to state our preferences about whom we want for each individual position.

Without the limitations of a slate system, SU could benefit from the variety of opinions that would come from a group of people who have not worked together before and agreed on a few core ideas. With more competitive, individual elections, even eventual losing candidates will have their ideas heard, instead of simply the ideas of their slate.

We hope that for the next election, there is a group of slates running for office. However, in the future, we believe switching out the slate system would be enormously beneficial.

Competitive elections are better for the school, and by running on the slate system we are keeping people out of office who should have the opportunity to at least run.