Though opposition has risen to their existence, slates play a vital role in the rich educational experience which aspiring ASI officers receive during election season. Over the course of this year?s ASI elections, students were engulfed by the enthusiastic bribery and fierce campaigning that the “Capitol University” should expect (and we truly received) from its student government candidates.

The election?which resulted in quite possibly the largest voter turnout in campus history?has been met with some criticism. This criticism arose after the final tallies revealed that slate sponsored candidates pummeled all other non-party competition, thus leaving some voters disenfranchised and beckoning many to contemplate whether Sac State should encourage the slate-party system.

As a columnist for The State Hornet, I have reaped the benefits of a real life journalism experience. Much like The Hornet fosters a journalistic atmosphere, the election process hands ASI candidates a much-needed taste of how the cutthroat political process truly works?especially for those with higher political aspirations. Thus, the removal of the slate system from our elections would inhibit this educational experience.

Though some have commented that the slate system is unfair for non-slate candidates, consider the last time that a candidate besides Ross Perot made it anywhere in the political arena, without party affiliation. Similarly, candidates who were not sponsored by slates were crushed in the ASI elections this year. Likewise, the VISION slate proved that the slate system will continue to dominate the elections on this campus.

Speaking of VISION, did anyone ever wonder how the slate, which lacked the backing of The Hornet, the blessing of the Greeks, and the pull of the athletic department nearly swept the ASI elections? Some might attribute the large success to Krispy Kreme, which gladly donated hundreds of donuts to the squad for election week, a superb example of bribery.

However, the presence of a united minority voice (there is no intent to imply that the non-minority vote didn?t matter) appears to be the main contributing factor for VISION?s success. The large minority vote?which, I imagine almost entirely went to VISION?crushed the Greek and athletic vote, which I had wrongly predicted to be the election clincher. This election saw a Greek vote split between the three slates: VISION, Support US and Students First.

One might also attribute a portion of VISION?s success to the late arrival of the Students First?s Greek & athletic slate. Many Greek voters who would have gladly given a vote to Support US, were now tempted by this new slate. The presence of Students First captured (in my opinion) roughly one-third of Support US?s votes away.

As for next year?s elections, Support US?s Tom Hughes has clenched a definite shot at President for being the only non-VISION executive. Being the lone Support US executive will probably give the campus a strong image of Mr. Hughes, definitely a benefit to his future campaign. However, he has made no such comment to me on his intents for the next election.

After all, most would say that it is not experience, but donuts, that win elections.

Joshua Wood is an undeclared student. He can be reached by e-mail at [email protected].