Last week’s ASUW presidential candidate debate in the Union was a great chance to see the candidates up close and see how they reacted to on the spot questions and the students in the audience. Both sets of candidates have remarkably similar stances on issues and goals for ASUW, and whereas either set would make great presidents, Mitch Nedved and Ali Moore should gain your vote.
Nedved and Moore are running on the platform of transparency, accountability and technology. They feel that students should know what is going on in ASUW and how their student fees are being used and have an open door policy, which means that students should be able to go down to the ASUW office and voice their opinions on issues. They don’t make any promises of radical change, but what they do say is that they want to maintain the programs ASUW already has and improve them from the ground up. They addressed the problem of unpredictable Wi-Fi, and tying that back to their technology stance, they have been advocating placing digital signs outside of Coe, Ross Hall and Half Acre to help UW become a more tech savvy campus.
This is not to say that Brett Kahler and Kia Murdock would make poor decisions for ASUW. They want to be able to reach out to more students by moving the ASUW offices to a better location and if possible not raise student fees. Moving the ASUW offices is a well-intentioned idea, but the money it would take to move already existing offices could be better used to adopt a new program like the vetoed ACRES farm, or help fund an event for an RSO. They said they would focus on creating a student memorial honoring former UW students and address issues of advising week and ice on campus. Both candidates addressed issues of Greek life and pledged to help maintain the community and recognized that many UW leaders are connected to a Greek organization.
When the candidates’ stances on key issues are similar, it comes down to tiny differences like who was better prepared for the debate and ultimately to question why they are running. Kahler and Murdock gave good responses to the questions but at times they looked unprepared. When they were given time to discuss their answers before sharing them with the audience they sometimes only looked at each other and didn’t bring notes. This could be viewed as confidence but it came across as flying by the seat of their pants. Nedved and Moore by comparison may not have had the same charisma or natural speaking ability but they clearly planned out their answers and referenced their notes and were able to tie all their answers back in to their three main points. As the polls open today I urge you to vote for Nedved and Moore and support the better prepared candidates and more transparency in ASUW.
