It's Student Union election season, which means that punny posters are covering the campus once again. Yet it isn't always the candidates' faults that they have to resort to this petty level of self promotion; the student body is so apathetic about the elections that that those running must not talk about platforms and policy in detail for fear of alienating voters-or even putting them to sleep. The flawed election system exists in a flawed environment. Yet changes to the system could possibly spark revitalized student interest. All this is not to say that candidates shouldn't be light-hearted. A completely solemn and humorless electoral campaign is even worse than one that relies solely on bad jokes, because the latter at least recognizes that humor is what students prefer. And, yes, a few of this year's puns have almost made me chuckle-"Just plain common o's," from a Finance Board candidate, for example.

Still, there needs to be a balance reached between a professional and farcical system of electoral politics.

A fine line exists between the "hey-this-looks-fun-I'll-give-it-a-shot-it'll-make-me-feel-important-and-will-look-good-on-a-rsum" candidate and the candidate who possesses thoughtful ideas about how to better campus life. In order for students to spot the candidate who knows what he or she is doing, the campaigning period should be extended.

One week is not long enough for "official" campaigning-especially in a year with four presidential and four vice presidential candidates. In order for candidates to explain their platforms without resorting to clichs-and for students to discern who is full of hot air-they should be forced to put themselves under the spotlight for more time. Seven days is a short enough span for candidates to get away with pretending to truly care and disguising platitudes as well-considered ideas; any longer, and they'll have to discuss their ideas in some detail.

I do recognize that a longer campaigning period may deepen the lack of interest many students display toward Union politics, but it's a risk that's worth taking.

What definitely must be changed in the future, however, is the brief time period-just one day!-between primary and secondary rounds. Yes, in some years and with some races it will be unnecessary. Yet in years with so many presidential candidates, such as this one, one day will not be enough time for the two survivors to duke it out, so to speak. The four this year have, for the most part, only spoken in generalities; students should have more time, once the primary circus has died down somewhat, to hold the final two up against each other to determine who will make the better president.

There are also too many similarities between the elections process here and the way this was all done in high school, specifically that the club endorsement system essentially germinates into a popularity contest. Those students who vote "just because," and don't know anything about the issues are more likely to vote for the candidate with the long list of clubs listed under his or her name-not a very valid representation of quality.

Yes, some of these are legitimate, but only from the clubs that have a stake in the turnout such as club sports teams, or the ones that know how the system works, such as campus media. If someone could demonstrate how the support of a performance or religious group makes a better official, I will happily stand corrected. For example, The 24 Society has no business officially supporting a candidate-unless it's a sign of the candidate's time-management and terrorisist-busting skills. It seems that most of these endorsements are based on friendship. The import of endorsements is also greatly diminished when a club backs multiple candidates.

The system should be changed in future years to bar clubs that are recognized-ones that aren't able to get SAF money-but not chartered from endorsing candidates, because they don't have a stake in the process. Furthermore, clubs should not be allowed to endorse multiple candidates, even if the candidates are all members of the club. Students don't get multiple votes, and therefore club endorsement for multiple candidates should similarly not be permitted

Very small changes could fundamentally reform the Union's election system. Extending the campaign season and making club endorsements more significant may end up pushing more students toward apathy by making the candidates seem too self-important; yet, hopefully, if the Union took elections a little more seriously, so would its constituents.