2008 Woodie Awards
Election: call heads or tails
Debate analysis
Matt Collette
Issue date: 3/17/08 Section: News
If last week's debate was any indication, the student body will have quite an easy decision when it comes to which Student Government Association (SGA) presidential nominee they will vote for. With two candidates so remarkably similar, basing the decision on the flip of a coin might have the same effect a thought out and informed decision could.
For the majority of issues discussed at last Thursday's first SGA presidential debate, candidates Rob Ranley and Marines Piney were in agreement. There were times when the candidates rephrased the same answers, and others when they simply said they aligned.
The few distinguishing aspects of Ranley and Piney's campaigns came only implicitly, in their answers to several questions about the role and duties of the SGA.
For instance, Ranley said the SGA needed to do more to bring new constituencies into the organization. Piney however said the SGA needed to be "doing the PR thing" by going out to the students and the community to hear what they had to say, then going back to business as usual.
Ranley seemed to advocate change within the SGA, bringing in fresh blood and new viewpoints. He wanted more representation from athletes, clubs and students on co-op. With new people directly participating in the SGA, he said the organization would naturally evolve.
Piney, on the other hand, pushed for keeping the organization of SGA the same, while doing more to reach out for student input. She said SGA should "reach out to students to see what interests them and act on it."
Throughout the debate, Piney also pushed for an SGA that relied on a strong executive board. Ranley adopted a more populist approach, believing that a change in the nature of the Senate would bring a change to the organization.
Perhaps frustrated by the lack of major differences between the two candidates, one student in the audience asked the candidates during the open question segment of the debate what specifically made them different.
"I don't think you need to disagree with someone to set yourself apart," Piney said. For the most part, unsurprisingly, Ranley agreed.
From two intelligent, eloquent speakers, such a statement sets an uncomfortable tone for the rest of the campaign.
So maybe the big question is this: heads or tails?
For the majority of issues discussed at last Thursday's first SGA presidential debate, candidates Rob Ranley and Marines Piney were in agreement. There were times when the candidates rephrased the same answers, and others when they simply said they aligned.
The few distinguishing aspects of Ranley and Piney's campaigns came only implicitly, in their answers to several questions about the role and duties of the SGA.
For instance, Ranley said the SGA needed to do more to bring new constituencies into the organization. Piney however said the SGA needed to be "doing the PR thing" by going out to the students and the community to hear what they had to say, then going back to business as usual.
Ranley seemed to advocate change within the SGA, bringing in fresh blood and new viewpoints. He wanted more representation from athletes, clubs and students on co-op. With new people directly participating in the SGA, he said the organization would naturally evolve.
Piney, on the other hand, pushed for keeping the organization of SGA the same, while doing more to reach out for student input. She said SGA should "reach out to students to see what interests them and act on it."
Throughout the debate, Piney also pushed for an SGA that relied on a strong executive board. Ranley adopted a more populist approach, believing that a change in the nature of the Senate would bring a change to the organization.
Perhaps frustrated by the lack of major differences between the two candidates, one student in the audience asked the candidates during the open question segment of the debate what specifically made them different.
"I don't think you need to disagree with someone to set yourself apart," Piney said. For the most part, unsurprisingly, Ranley agreed.
From two intelligent, eloquent speakers, such a statement sets an uncomfortable tone for the rest of the campaign.
So maybe the big question is this: heads or tails?
Be the first to comment on this story