Abolish StuCo Signature Sheets
By: Ethan Ding ‘25
The start of the Exeter election season marks the beginning of a week-long cringe season when Exonians run and hide whenever they see clipboard carriers walking around. With their signature sheet, the aspiring class rep is such an identifiable and widely dreaded character— an annoyance, really. Unless they are your friends, you shake and shudder when you see them. I have witnessed people running and hiding to keep from interacting with those who carry clipboards. What must have started as a practical and sensible measure has evolved into a futile and pointless obstacle that potential candidates and the Exonians of the general public have to overcome.
Let us examine the potential purposes that signature collection has or may have had. Drawing from personal opinions and consultation with my peers, the signing of signature sheets accomplishes (or aims to achieve) two main things. First, as a way to make sure that candidates have support from the student body. And secondly is a barrier that candidates have to overcome to show that they are committed and genuinely interested in representing their class. Both were meant to ensure that the candidates are well-liked and dedicated. However, as the process is today, the signing of signature sheets has strayed away from whatever purpose it was meant to serve initially. Ask any student about their experiences and how they approach signing candidates’ signature sheets, and the answer will be the same. During election season, aspiring candidates can be seen wandering Elm and Wetherell, posting themselves at Grill or other hotspots around campus to catch any unfortunate signatories.
I have observed people blocking the entrances to academic buildings, in effect only letting people go about their business if they sign their sheets. With strategies such as these, the majority of candidates collect signatures. Candidates often don’t take the time to explain what they are running for or why members of their class should vote for them, especially in situations where time is of the essence, such as some of the previously mentioned situations. I am definitely not alone when I say that some candidates will ask you multiple times, despite you having already signed their sheet already. Routinely, candidates will simply just ask whether someone is a part of their class year or not, and Exonians, with the spirit of non sibi so dear to their hearts, don’t hesitate to sign. In short, people sign the sheets, no matter the candidate or whether they support them or not. Because of this, the hundreds of signatures that candidates collect aren’t an accurate reflection of whether their intended policies are popular or of the candidate’s popularity with their class. Even the most (hypothetically) undesirable candidate who won’t represent the class well and has the worst policies, if given adequate time, would be able to reach the number of signatures required to run.
One could stop here and declare that signature sheets are a deficient system already, but one more point has been commonly brought up in its defence. That requiring potential candidates to collect that particular number of signatures proves that those candidates are committed and passionate about running and, by extension, will “weed out” those who are not serious or running as a joke. Although this is true, signature sheets take lots of time to complete and are an arduous task to power through; there are vastly better ways for candidates to show their commitment. Instead of requiring candidates to fill in the signatures sheets, candidates could be required to put additional work into their candidate statements, a more demanding application system for the candidate ship could be implemented, or we could just let the election run its course and see which candidates put the most effort into their respective campaigns. But, how do we continue to prevent students who are not running seriously from becoming candidates? The simple answer is that we shouldn’t have to. The fear of having people who are not serious or lack dedication become candidates rests in the possibility that these candidates will actually get elected. But, this fear is misplaced. Our election system is meant for the class to elect the best representatives, and unless it is the preference of the class to elect a representative who ran as a joke, these candidates should pose no problem to the election system. If we can’t trust the voters themselves to make the best decision for their class, what can be said about the efficacy of our elections? Signature sheets shouldn’t be needed for candidates to prove their commitment; the election system itself should be adequate enough to select the most committed candidates and have the best ideas for the class. Even if we are still confident in our elections and assume that the system isn’t broken already, we can require candidates to show their devotion in other ways, such as in their candidate statements and candidateship applications.
As they are now, signature sheets are nothing more than a “time fee” that aspiring candidates have to pay to run for representative. They are not reflective of a candidate’s legitimacy or popularity, rather a nuisance to the candidates themselves and every peer whose days are consistently interrupted during week-long election periods.
In lieu of signature sheets, Student Council has a variety of ways to continue to run elections. One potential solution is to introduce preliminary elections, where students nominate a reasonable number of candidates, say fifteen or twenty, and then let the election continue as it does now. Student Council could think of a fair and sensible way to conduct these preliminary elections. Student Council definitely has more resources and more experience than I do, which reinforces the idea that the signature sheets could be replaced with a much-improved solution. The removal of this broken system would improve the well-being of voters, the lives of candidates alike, and finally the efficacy of our elections.
