According to Connect's platform statement, the SG ticket supports the Internet, the E-Bus and continuing initiatives already implemented by the current assembly.
The Ignite ticket is down with safety, student organizations, the Internet and parking.
We should stress the Internet. Both tickets really like the Internet. Around 20 percent of both parties' platform items focus on creating or improving a Web site, or increasing Internet access.
That's fine. But nobody's really going out on a limb here. All these items could be replaced with a single statement: "This ticket would support and encourage any initiative that prevents the University from becoming technologically obsolete."
After that, the reader could concentrate on the more controversial and revolutionary proposals. Except there are none.
We had planned to rate each ticket's platform statements in several categories. But the statements make one thing clear: This election is about people, not issues.
Welcome to the new millennium
As mentioned above, both tickets seem to be fascinated by the bright lights and fiber-optics of the 21st Century. They want Web sites for everything.
Ignite wants a better Student Government Web site and an improved UT Direct calendar. Connect says it would create a ticket-swapping site for athletic events. Both want an online housing guide.
Putting stuff on the Web is a perennial platform item, and every year things get a little bit better. Neither ticket has offered any revolutionary ideas in this field, and the Web should be discounted as a major campaign issue.
Lobbying
Connect seems happy to take credit for the inevitable.
Their agenda for the Texas Legislature, for example, looks remarkably similar to Focus. Their first platform item is to push for sales tax exemptions for textbooks. That's fine, but the bills are already filed and have bipartisan support. Even if you write in Willie Nelson for SG president, the future looks pretty good for tax-free textbooks.
The platform also contains a plan that would require state universities to set tuition for at least two years in advance. This would prevent unexpected and drastic cost increases and create more financial stability for students.
But the wheels are already turning on this one, too. SG President Brent Chaney said the idea had already come up in conversation with state officials when Connect approached him about it. "Honestly, a lot of people are coming up with that idea," he said.
But Connect's state-policy agenda almost has to be unoriginal. If elected on March 3, they'd only have six days to get new legislation filed at the Capitol before the March 11 deadline.
Ignite, on the other hand, barely acknowledges the state Legislature.
Instead, the ticket picks on the Austin City Council - a rather unusual target for an SG campaign. The platform calls for a liaison to the council and efforts to put SG reps on various city boards.
Such a move could certainly help expand the influence of Student Government. Representation at the city level could particularly help for transportation, police and zoning issues that affect students. For example, a city council liaison could help push Ignite's effort for more bike lanes near campus.
But the prominence of this platform item shows the ticket's misplaced priorities. If Ignite has any illusions that work at the city level will act as a stepping stone to greater influence with the Legislature and the Board of Regents, they should forget about it. The city council is small potatoes in the eyes of the University.
Judging from platform statements, neither ticket is prepared to wield great influence off-campus. Connect is too reliant on the previous assembly's achievements, and Ignite is too focused on a body with little influence on UT.
Academic affairs
In this area, too, Connect plans on jumping on a few policy trains after they've left the station.
One item calls for involvement in the creation of a new student activities center on the east side of campus. This idea was recommended by the Commission of 125 and endorsed by President Faulkner. Though it's nice that Connect wants to "lead" its creation, it'll happen with or without SG involvement, and the platform doesn't provide any new ideas.
The ticket also supports recruiting students from underrepresented schools, which would seem to imply support for a targeted effort at increasing minority representation. But the final sentence of the platform item states, "Connect believes admissions should equally pursue students from all areas of the state." The result is a statement that the University should recruit from high schools in Texas, which it obviously does.
Ignite comes out more strongly in support of targeted recruitment. But both tickets offer few specifics for recruiting. Since the administration already has targeted recruiting programs that appear to be slowly working, maybe it doesn't need Connect or Ignite.
What's left?
Last year, the Focus ticket swept all contested positions. They had run on the slogan that SG should "focus on the individual student." In fact, the phrase was code for shying away from radical proposals, controversial issues and sweeping changes.
In effect, "focus on the student" has become "focus on minutia." Platform items such as "cleaner bathrooms" and "shorter cafeteria lines" would fit alongside Connect's "give an option for miniature key-chain student ID cards" and Ignite's "school supply vending machines."
It's like Student Council all over again. The two tickets have developed positions so safe that either could adopt the other's platform without changing the election.
Be the first to comment on this article!