If ignorance really is bliss, then we must be a happy student body. From April 16-18, students voted for next year’s Student Executive Council (SEC) officers without hesitation—but also without any significant knowledge of the candidates’ platform and goals, the differences between the candidates or even what each position’s roles are. The current SEC election process is ineffective in informing the student body and, consequently, ensuring the best candidates are elected.

The root of the problem is the lack of communication between the candidates and the student body before election. Thoughtful communication should be the cornerstone of the election process, providing information to the student body, actively questioning the candidates and ultimately electing the most fitting candidate. The SEC and the candidates should revise the election system and reach out to familiarize their electorate with appropriate information. By instigating more useful communication between the candidates and the students, the student body would better succeed in selecting more qualified candidates, thereby benefiting the entire school.

First, let’s mutually admit that the “communication” tactics in use now barely communicate any practical information. The blurbs in The Oracle’s special election edition are the only required forms of communication to run for a position.

The short blurbs do not say anything relevant. They only convey general ideas that anyone could give—blurbs often read: “I will give you the best year of high school.” Thanks, but how do you plan on doing that specifically in the context of your specific desired position? Candidates can say anything they want in the blurbs, and there are no required points to cover, rendering the blurbs practically useless in informing readers.

The traditional posters, however, are the most ineffectual, almost laughingstock component of the election process. Their only function is to create an image with no substance for all of the candidates. They read “Vote for whomever for whatever,” but few explain why. The posters nicely summarize the entire election process—an image-and-slogan race without core platforms. This year, a new form of communication took form in Facebook. But keep in mind that political and campaign networking only works when candidates actually have platforms they are running for and ideas they represent. The Facebook groups were useless because they do not communicate any substantial information about the candidate or his or her platform.

Because the little communication that exists does not require the candidates to discuss real platforms, the current election system undermines the validity of the winners. The elected candidates did not win because they had the best, most promising platforms, because no one really had one. As a result, students did not know which candidate would be best for the job, and voted for either people they personally knew, or just “anybody.” This inept election process can hardly be deemed “democratic,” nor does it guarantee the best students for the various SEC positions.

SEC needs to reform its election process by including more direct, comprehensive communication. It should first tackle early communication between itself and students and more clearly state what each elected position does for the school, and what the qualifications are for each. For example, SEC could clear up what specifically the Student Body President does, what the Dance Commissioner does besides “plan Prom” and exactly what a Publicity Commissioner is. By stating this information, the student body will know what qualities to look for in each position’s candidates.

In addition, the SEC should provide for more required communication between the candidates and the student body. If the United States presidential election only provided citizens with a quarter-page blurb, a photograph and some posters, it would be considered a joke within democracies. Thankfully for Americans, the presidential candidates bombard people with speeches everyday, and debate amongst themselves to establish individuality. SEC elections should be no different—the SEC should require five to ten minute speeches from candidates in which they detail their platforms, actually present their physical selves in front of the student body and get to the real deal. Perhaps this additional process could take place in the form of a special “Election Assembly.” Some sort of debate process is also a viable idea, through which the student body can pose questions and the candidates can actually compare themselves to one another.

Despite the obvious advantages of requiring speeches or debates, many students still argue that speeches should not be mandatory because they do not simply want the better public speakers to win. This objection, however, is absolutely ludicrous, because if that’s really the case, then SEC shouldn’t have posters either—by the same argument, the posters give the candidates with the best artistic abilities or financial conditions an unfair advantage. The fact is, public speaking is an indispensable part of politics. By directly speaking to the student body, students can make decisions based on the substance that they hear.

By requiring and providing for direct communication between the candidates and the student body, the SEC will create an important criterion for prospective candidates to meet. It will weed out any candidates who have no direction in their platforms and are only running for their resumes. Candidates will be forced to think through the reasons of why they are running and present them in a clear, informative way. The student body will receive more facts to consider in placing its votes. Ultimately, improving communication within the election process will validate SEC as a whole, strengthen the school with more qualified leaders and make the entire procedure much more exciting for students to participate in.