When the most intellectually stimulating part of election week is someone running around in a giant toilet-paper suit, something is wrong. With bitter rivalries over opinion-less fluff, false promises that obviously can't be met and meaningless endorsements from every club on campus, it was hard to walk around this week without doubting the representative validity of the Student Union elections.Two weeks into the year, most first-years are still getting acquainted with the unusual dining hours, getting lost on campus and discerning the strange intricacies of the BranVan route. Thus, it becomes extremely unlikely that freshman candidates for senator have a worthwhile and grounded platform. It was hardly surprising to see ethnic inside jokes, cute puns on candidates' names and other trivial persuasion devices fill the bylines of fliers across campus. It was much more heart-wrenching to see the same from upperclassmen, whom you'd hope would have had time to formulate some true positions.

Candidates further distinguished themselves by engaging in one-upmanship games with their false promises. As nice as reduced bookstore prices, better dinning hours and more nutritional meal options would be, it is doubtful that a newly elected officer can truly influence these matters. Apparently, these candidates have extremely high hopes-or at least campaign promises.

Additionally, to make themselves seem particularly professional, these candidates scrambled to receive endorsements from every conceivable club. Now, I can understand why an endorsement from the Brandeis Labor Union or the Brandeis Democrats or Republicans can be a valuable identifier, and I can maybe see how the support of the school's debate society says a lot about a candidate's speaking abilities, but I cannot, for the life of me, imagine what an endorsement from the Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu club means. Are opponents supposed to be intimidated, or are we supposed sleep better at night knowing that our quad senator can beat up any prowlers trying to sneak into our dorms?

Perhaps the mad drive for sponsorship helps explain some of the bitter and unprofessional practices that occurred. Crumpled or ripped flyers were a common sight in hallways; conceivably, these offenses could have been coincidences or examples of poor taping, were it not for the fact that they were often ripped right through the candidates' faces and thrown into crevices or corners where they could not be read.

Despite the explicit ban on negative campaigning in the election rules, these practices continued unabated. Perhaps this was due to the idiosyncrasies of campaign rules, which do not allow any spending in order to level the playing field. When face recognition is everything, creative destruction may be one of the few ways to truly get ahead of one's opponent, but it also strongly reflects the lack of true voting issues.

Maybe this is what happens when candidates have no other outlet through which to express themselves, and constituents have no way to express their views beyond tiny pieces of paper or meaningless endorsements. When name recognition is all there is, vandalism and brinkmanship occur.

But these occurrences also further strip away any substance. It's no wonder so many people choose to abstain from the whole process. "I don't even know these candidates. . I don't really care if someone is running and making the toilet paper two-ply," said one first year.

I don't really know what needs to be done to save our elections, but perhaps actual debates between the candidates on BTV or WBRS would generate true interest and enthusiasm. At the very least, they would allow students a better opportunity to decide which candidate, rather than which kind of toilet paper or empty slogan, is worthy of their votes.