TCU Senate should let more students run for presidential elections

Yesterday, the Tufts Community Union (TCU) Senate presidential election was held. A defining feature of this year’s presidential election was that junior Brian Tesser ran completely unopposed, an unprecedented development and a virtually guaranteed win. During a year in which Tufts was involved in many controversial issues -- club travel budget cuts, housing changes and employee cuts -- the lack of diversity represented in an uncontested presidential election is unhealthy for the university and its students. This is certainly not Brian Tesser’s fault, and it is apparent that the president elect himself agrees with this sentiment; in an interview with the Daily, he stated, “I’m not happy that the election is uncontested … I think it’s crucial that the student body has an idea of what different stances are.”

Perhaps the problem of this uncontested election lies in the rule laid out in the TCU Senate Constitution that states, “The Senate … will nominate presidential candidates from among its members to participate in a campus-wide election of the TCU President.” The fact that the pool of students that are eligible to run for president is limited to only members of the Senate heavily restricts the representation of the various views and stances that other Tufts students may have and grants only a small subset of the student population the opportunity to express themselves.

This also significantly reduces the chances for an “issue candidate” -- a candidate who pushes the debate toward a specific issue with which he or she has experience or expertise -- to run. Expanding the opportunity to run to every student on campus would allow for particularly vociferous issue candidates to publicly market their ideas to the larger Tufts community through what many on campus see as a legitimate medium -- a campaign. Not to mention that fact that voter turnout would surely increase if a broader selection of candidates were allowed to run.

It is true that the presidential election -- and Senate -- may run more efficiently if only TCU Senate members were allowed to run, as is currently the case. Members of TCU Senate are more likely to be familiar with how to run in a TCU election and how to be a part of the TCU Senate, and it would make it a lot less likely for the election to turn into something akin to a popularity contest. At a university where its students deeply care about pressing issues, though, it is highly unlikely that the voters would prioritize having their friends represented in the student government over the candidates' angles on an issue they are passionate about. The deterrent of actually running a presidential campaign would also serve to discourage students who are not legitimately interested in effecting positive change on campus.

Especially during a time when a range of different issues face the Tufts community, the TCU Senate should have allowed a bigger fraction of the population, if not the entire student body, to run in the presidential election. This is one of the many positive changes Tesser will have the opportunity to effect on campus next year as our TCU President, and hopefully this is a change that will come sooner rather than later.