Don't rush elections

controversy mishaps

Elections should be about the preparedness, competency and skills of the candidates and their positions on issues important to students. A short campaign season undermines on two levels the ability of students to make decisions based on these criteria. First, by providing only one official debate that occurs barely a few days after the candidates have been announced, the USG gives students little time to consider the candidates' positions. A longer campaign period would give candidates more opportunity through direct communication or by statements to campus media and organizations to ensure their ideas are widely heard. More importantly, it would give students a greater ability to hold candidates to their promises after elections are over. Secondly, a short campaign season gives students little time to discuss the merits of the candidates with their peers. Given the propensity of any given Princeton student to disappear under a mound of papers, JPs, problem sets and exams for two or three days at a time, it's not hard to imagine that many students don't even realize that an election is being conducted, let alone who is running and why.

While it is true that, at some point, lengthening the campaign unreasonably takes over candidates' lives, students intending to take USG leadership roles should hardly fear 10 days of scrutiny. Today, elections are too often decided by backroom maneuvering and "official" endorsements from friends of friends. Finally, adjudication of controversies over election rules would benefit from a longer timeframe, making any required proceedings less frantic and more transparent.

The USG did an excellent job this year of soliciting candidates, with several open-house meetings and e-mails. The USG should build on that initiative and inject a healthy dose of political professionalism into other aspects of USG elections. That should start - though not end - with a longer campaign.