The IDS Editorial Board invited both of the IU Student Association tickets to a discussion Friday to determine whether to endorse Hoosier or Red Hot for this year's election. To our dismay, neither ticket swept us off our feet. Fighting through campaign rhetoric, unrealistic idealism and misguided platforms helped obscure and confound our decision-making process even further. \nBut we recognize the logistical error of endorsing no one because whether we particularly like a ticket or not, the election will occur anyway. To this end, and with considerably cold feet, we half-heartedly endorse Hoosier and urge students to pressure whomever wins the election to address the issues that really matter to the Bloomington campus.

We could not endorse either ticket based on their platforms alone. For the last few weeks, we have repeatedly expressed our disappointment with the platforms of both the campaigns. Academics has not been an issue either party stressed, as both parties have tended to focus on luxuries -- the Ruckus downloading service, extending SRSC hours, dollar-cab rides, digital clocks to count down bus arrivals, etc. -- rather than substantive change for students. \nOn its academic side, Red Hot chose to ride the wave of wireless proliferation, a plan already being worked on by University Information Technology Services that is all but inevitable in application. During the debate, Hoosier's description of its academic agenda ranged from lackluster at best to empty at worst. Its plan to put evaluations of professors online would certainly decrease the number of evaluations if students didn't just fill in a couple bubbles at the end of a semester. It said it would encourage students to do better as a way to help raise admissions standards, but this idea showed little thought on its part as it was without details or plans. Both tickets promised to keep students active in the campus governance. The promise was fulfilling, but the details were not.\nAnother issue we have pressed both tickets to incorporate into their platforms is sexual assault prevention programs. We are happy that women's groups on campus invited the candidates to a debate of their own regarding this very important issue, but we were not satisfied with the tickets' responses during our own debate. The tickets suggested implementing some deterrents on the walkways of the campus and the streets of Bloomington as a way to help address the problem, such as wanting to install more lighting on the sidewalks and make more mass public transportation available in the evening, perhaps at the risk of wrongly diverting funds away from the current IUSA Safety Escort program. But these plans ignore the reality that the majority of sexual assaults happen behind closed doors, and at IU, in the dorms. Certainly it should be safe to walk across campus at night, but the tickets' plans do not strike at the heart of the problem. Sexual assault education was repeatedly brought up, but only in mass generalities.\nWhen we couldn't endorse on platform issues, we were left with a more pragmatic and more cynical way of viewing the election. Sooner or later, performance must come into play. And on this score, Hoosier stole the show. The Hoosier candidates seemed cool, calm, collected and determined to stay on message. They were slick and savvy; all the things that typically make politicians good at what they do and make the electorate cringe. \nIt's hardly a song of praise, but this quality should take them far within IUSA. It is necessary to understand that whomever is elected to be IUSA president will be the undergraduate student body's representative to the University administration for the next year. The most successful student body presidents are the ones who schmooze and stay well-connected to the administration, the ones who work well with the people who actually make the decisions about students. With cross-campus appeal and an executive ticket full of students already deeply involved in various aspects of IU and who already know the big-name players, that ticket is Hoosier.\nWe believe both tickets are sincere in their passion for the University. It takes a certain kind of person to go out on a limb and run for IUSA, and we don't doubt both tickets want what is best for IU as a whole. Regardless of the election results, we hope all the candidates stay involved in campus governance. Whoever wins will face steep challenges as soon as they begin. Serious problems exist in the foreseeable future and will remain problems unless they are met by energetic, focused and sustained action -- which brings the subject back to the question of performance. Our wager is that with a wider social net and with the stronger determination to come across as professional and be well-liked, Hoosier is the ticket best equipped to tackle next year's campus.\nWe'd like to end with the quote that struck us the strongest from the entire debate. Stephanie Max, the Red Hot candidate for vice president of the congress, said many students don't realize the power they already have by mere virtue of the fact they are students at this University.\nWe wholeheartedly agree. This election should have been about the power of students to transform the campus into something unseen. It is well within our ability, and IUSA has the power to get something done. By focusing on trite luxury issues and forcing this election to come down to a personality contest, we can't help but feel like the tickets don't seem to realize the power they have on their own.

Eds. Note: IDS Editorial Board members Amy Obermeyer, Brian Stewart, Adam Sedia, Felipe Maya and Cordell Eddings voted to endorse Hoosier. Peter Chen, Bryan Schmidt, Mark Weinberg and Drew Smith voted to endorse neither ticket. Brian J. McFillen, Kirk Nathanson, Joanna Borns and Tony Sams abstained.

\n

Please IUSA, get something done

While we as an editorial staff have decided to grudgingly pledge our support to the Hoosier Party this year, it doesn't mean we have agreed with the way it, or either party, has presented itself to the campus. Upon listening to both groups discuss their issues, opinions and ideas Friday afternoon, we decided Hoosier was the "lesser of the two evils." However, the two tickets' inability to discuss and explore meaningful issues is a discouraging microcosm of the IU Student Association's ineffectual history, where trivial issues are displayed across the sky, while problems students are actually worried about get ignored. While it's each party's fault for being lackluster, the real problem is that IUSA has a historically and fundamentally flawed image because of rhetoric and past poor performances. \nMany students don't know the names of candidates on either ticket running for election, several don't even know what IUSA stands for and the paltry number of students who actually vote show that the majority of campus simply just does not care. How can any political platform be taken seriously if the entire notion of IUSA is considered weak at best, and pointless at its worst?\nIn order for IUSA to be taken seriously, it should actually \nattempt to act seriously in regards to the campaign issues it attempts to promote, rather than groveling for votes and extra resume lines. \nBeer gardens at the Union, full-time service of dollar cabs, legalized music and media services and the installation of "bus tickers" ensuring that riders know exactly when a bus is arriving all sound like fantastic ideas. But we feel that all of these promises sound too good to be true. And historically, they have been. \nIUSA administrations just haven't had the authority or driven creativity to initiate the push for effectual programs, as the aforementioned campaign promises have all failed miserably. \nDon't get us wrong: IUSA does have influence, and a powerful budget to back it up, but it has been misguided in its application of these powers. \nWhen will these administrations grow up and focus their attention on real problems? Measuring up in the Big Ten, sexual harassment and rape, student cohesiveness, the rising cost of tuition, financial departmental deficits and admission standards are serious problems on campus. None of the above issues have been adequately addressed or explored by IUSA tickets, but must be if either party is to have legitimate change. The University is at a crossroads in several areas, and the party that wins has a chance to make positive headway in these changes for the students of IU-Bloomington.\nPlease, IUSA winners, take a chance and address these issues. We simply ask that campaigns are serious, express their voice across campus and get something done. We ask the winner of this year's election be regularly available to students, think of serious and achievable goals to accomplish and most importantly, for the sake of IUSA, makes sure everyone knows that your organization exists, can prosper and is working for us.