Candidates Reflect on StuCo Elections
By ARYAN AGARWAL, ANGELA HE, and JUNE KOH
On Friday, Feb. 7, the student council announced the results of the Executive Board elections: upper Lauren Lee, upper Andrew Gould, and lowers Ari Benenson and Jade Yoo emerged as the newly elected leaders. But the election process extended beyond just these four winners — candidates and voters alike engaged in a rigorous campaign, shaping the outcome with their efforts and insights. As the results came in, reactions from all sides revealed key factors behind the decisions, offering valuable takeaways for future campaigns and the system itself. This week, The Exonian focused on those behind the curtains rather than those on stage, providing nuanced perspectives on the process.
Candidates shared their immediate reactions to the election results with a mix of satisfaction and constructive criticism. Lower Artur Ferreira summed up his view on fairness. “I feel like the election results were fair because they are meant to reflect student perspectives, and the people who most represented the student body were elected.” Reflecting on his own campaign and a personal setback, he added, “One challenge might’ve been that I was out of town the weekend before elections, so I couldn’t put up posters or anything.” Despite his loss, Ferreira remained optimistic about the future and is determined to continue his involvement in the student council.
Lower Dani Méndez emphasized the integrity of the process. “I fully trust Alex Trotman, co-chair of the elections committee. He carries out every election on campus, and I know that he upholds fairness as a pillar of his work.” She added, “Of course, I will stay involved in student council! No matter the outcome of any election, I have a passion to serve the student body, and I will continue to honor that. I’m planning on rerunning for the class of 2027 representative soon!”
In contrast, lower Hamdan Khan expressed surprise at the results, citing flaws in the ranked-choice voting system. “A lot of people on this campus don’t know how [ranked-choice voting] works, and I think that, among the flaws in the system itself, the fact that you can get every single second-place vote and still lose is a reflection on how the process isn’t the most fair.”
Several factors influenced the election outcomes, from debate performances to voting system mechanics. According to Khan, the presidential debate played a key role. “The debate did change quite a few things. Lauren did well in the debate in the sense that Ethan talked a little too much about the dining halls. It’s not the most important [policy].” He also pointed to vote splitting as a key factor, explaining, “Ethan and Kyle probably ended up splitting the male population votes on this campus. combined with how our voting system works, [that] is partially why they may have lost.”
Meanwhile, upper Dylan Richardson noted that voter engagement with his platform shaped his campaign experience. “Voters seemed legitimately interested in my plans for the student council: the dean’s council and two-week grading policy, especially, got people interested,” he shared.
Reflecting on their campaigns, candidates identified areas for personal improvement. Ferreira wished he had been more visible. “I could’ve worked on my speech a bit more or campaigned more on voting day, but in general, I should’ve been more vocal about my candidacy.”
Richardson felt his campaign ended prematurely. He explained, “I think if I had made it to the top three, I could have had a better opportunity to share my ideas for real reform.”
Upper Ethan Benenson said, looking back, “I got too tuned in and started rambling about D-Hall rather than focusing on my other policies.” He added that his campaign style, though authentic, may have cost him votes. He admitted, “I wish I had talked more about AI policies. It directly applied to my experience.” But despite their losses, both candidates remained proud of their efforts.
Multiple candidates called for reforms to the election system. Khan criticized ranked-choice voting, stating, “I think the most fair [system] would probably be an approval rating system.” He also suggested changes to the election structure, arguing, “Co-sec and vice president were announced at the same time as president. Campaigns aren’t supposed to be completely fair. They’re supposed to be about using leverage. Still, the election process itself should be fair.”
Following the elections, these candidates recognize that the student council executive board isn’t the only way to make our school better. Looking forward, they discussed how they plan to continue student leadership. Benenson said, “I really want to be a positive force for the school. There are other leadership positions I can apply for in Mock Trial, Model UN, and as a proctor as well.” He continued, “The class representative elections are coming up. I’ll throw one last shot out there. Why not? If I lose, then I lose, and at least I can say 10 years from now that I took all the chances that I could. I have plenty of booms left to give, but just for the seniors now.”
Many co-secretary candidates expressed a similar sentiment, planning their next steps in StuCo by joining one of the several committees. Khan envisioned “trying to get co-head of one of those committees and perhaps running for an executive position next year.” Oftentimes, in the past, those who were elected to executive positions were previously co-heads of these committees, giving students another path.
Lower Logan Liu echoed, “I’m co-head of the Student Life committee right now and will continue in the position. We’re working on a lot of big initiatives right now that can make a big impact on the school, similar to the impact of a co-secretary. I don’t think that not winning takes away my ability to make change.” Many others hold the same belief, hoping that their title won’t hinder their power to take initiative for Exeter’s improvement.
Some candidates have taken a more direct approach following the elections. Richardson said, “Since my loss, I have written an entirely new constitution for the student council and plan to work closely with the previous and new Executive Boards to get it implemented in time for turnovers. I love working in the student council and will not stop.”
Despite facing challenges and disappointment following the results, these Exonians still have an unwavering desire to push our school forward — for them, when one door closes, dozens of others open, and they are ready to tackle whatever is in front of them. One thing is for sure: with the passion that these students bring, our school will continue to make progress toward a better future.
