Two years ago, a single individual ran for Student Association president. In 2011, the race became contested as the number of candidates doubled. This year, the number of candidates doubled yet again.

Four people believe they are the best fit to lead not only the organization, but the Syracuse University community. There are four different sets of goals and four distinct personalities. And all four want your vote on Nov. 12-15.

The variations between the candidates are stark. A vice presidential pageant queen is wishing to continue Lustig-era characteristics; a quirky, plaid-wearing progressive is fighting to lead more than the Student Life Committee; a laid-back future diplomat is cultivating his grassroots approach inspired by living in several of the world’s developing nations; and a down-to-earth, no-nonsense businessman believes his broad-minded outlook and organization will serve the students best.

It is true Allie Curtis, PJ Alampi, Iggy Nava and Kyle Coleman, respectively, are a diverse group of people. They have grown up in different parts of the world and have had personal, unique experiences. No two candidates even share the same major.

When Neal Casey was the candidate in 2010, there was no need for serious campaigning. Only 10 percent voter participation was necessary for Casey to inevitably assume the presidency.

Last year, SU experienced a drastically different SA election season when two candidates put their names on the ballot. President Dylan Lustig and his challenger, Taylor Carr, campaigned relentlessly. Students became excited about the election, and what is more, the student body learned about SA and the vital role of constituents in making a representative student government function.

This awareness of the organization, and the fact that two candidates with drastically different ideals decided to fight for the position, created the greatest voter turnout ever experienced here at SU.

As individuals accustomed to American-style politics, this two major “party” system made sense. The members of SA and the student body aligned with the candidate they believed held values similar to their own.

But what made four separate individuals decide that they needed to lead SA into its next chapter and make a bid for the presidency in 2012? Why did a history of hardly challenged SA elections suddenly lead to one of the most hotly contested races in SU’s history?

After four interviews, I found several student leaders decided to enter the race not to fix one serious flaw. Instead, four individuals came up with four distinct plans they believe in. All four feel not even a single aspect could be compromised. All feel they have the responsibility to present their ideas to SU because they believe those ideas are truly worth considering.

And for the students of SU, this situation could not be better. We have a choice to make and, for the first time, there are more than two serious options.

With four candidates and their camps advocating for SA while competing for the presidency, the election has become more than a contest. It has become a tool for calling attention to an aspect of SU that, universally, we should all care about.

It’s part of my job to get to know SU’s student leaders and discover what they stand for, but each one really wants to talk to you. Improving SU is what each candidate thrives on, so set up your own interviews and determine which direction you want this campus to take. Plus, who doesn’t like some friendly competition?

Rachael Barillari is a junior political science and Middle Eastern studies major. Her column appears weekly. She can be reached at rebarill@syr.edu.

Published on November 1, 2012 at 1:59 am