Democracy Defended

As posters are ripped off walls and candidates tease each other in their assembly speeches, many have come to question the fairness and ethics of the Student Council Executive Board elections.

Every year, a group of students run for the esteemed positions of secretary, vice-president, and president in a multi-tiered elections process. 

First, the candidates must accumulate 350 signatures from their schoolmates as well as submit a one page candidate statement, and then they have a week to campaign across campus. On the day of primary voting, each contender presents a speech at Assembly, and then the two candidates with the most ballots for each job proceed to the final round of voting, held a week later. This complex procedure along with the abundance of campaign rules, including a spending cap and “no smearing of other candidates,” make the elections process fair and in alignment with the Academy’s “non-sibi” attitude.

Firstly, by requiring students to obtain a large number of signatures, Exeter rules out any Exonians who are not truly interested in the position. At many schools and as a general stereotype, student council elections are seen as a popularity contest, where the people who would actually be good at the job are overlooked. 

Obtaining roughly a third of the school’s signatures is quite difficult, and it eliminates candidates who are not willing to put in the work. After running for the Discipline Committee, I have learned how frustrating the process is, and had I not been very motivated to be a DC member, I likely would have given up.

In addition, the spending cap put in place for candidates grants every contestant, no matter their economic situation, a chance at the position. This year, Exonians could spend no more than $20.14 on any aspects of their campaign, and if receipts were presented, the candidates would be fully refunded by StuCo. 

This mandate ensures that students cannot waste money on bake sales, tons of food, or extravagant posters to win the position, while other candidates do not have any of their own money to spend. Instead, contestants must spend their allotted money wisely, and no one can gain an advantage just because they have more money available.

Finally, the “no smearing” rule, which some question, allows the elections to be competitive while sticking to the “non-sibi” core of Exeter. Of course, all the candidates have pros and cons, and it might mae sense for other contenders to point out those flaws. This attitude, however, could become distasteful and potentially cruel. Even with the guideline in place, candidates can still be rude. 

Last Tuesday, one potential executive board member remarked on the height of another, and although it was harmless, we must bear in mind this comment was made when the rule was actually in place. Imagine what could happen if this requirement was no longer present. There could be posters, remarks, or internet posts that tease fellow candidates, and this is not in the spirit of what Exeter likes to see in its students: compassion, generosity and consideration for others. 

After all, we should trust Exonians, and if this rule was not in place most things would not change, but we are highschoolers, and occasionally a funny joke can turn into a hurtful campaign for an executive board position.