The election for president of the Tufts Community Union (TCU) Senate looms less than two weeks away, and the candidates are readying their campaigns, codifying their messages, and getting ready to debate the issues so the student body can make an educated choice.
But wait, what issues?
Very little substantive differences exist between presidential hopefuls Treasurer Michele Shelton and Vice President Eric Greenberg. Perennial gripes such as a shortage of student parking and the housing crunch are no longer viable, thanks to the construction of Dowling Hall and the February decision to build a new dormitory. Neither of the candidates can argue that they are "outsiders" or that they hope to storm in and fight the administration, as current Senate President David Moon did last year - both are well-known as high-up Senate insiders and both value the good relationships they have forged with administrators.
The candidates have managed to defuse any threat of controversy even on the few contentious issues up for debate. Two proposed amendments to the Senate constitution will likely stir up some debate between now and election day. One amendment would give culture group representatives full voting rights on the Senate, and the other would prohibit student groups from discriminating on the basis of one's self-acceptance of a belief, a result of the year-long Tufts Christian Fellowship debate.
But the candidates have both come out strongly in favor of the amendments, killing any chance for debate, or for groups of supporters and opponents to coalesce around either of them.
The same goes with the issue of revising the block schedule. Each candidate says that there are problems with the current schedule, but the proposal floated by Vice President of Arts, Sciences, and Engineering Mel Bernstein is not the solution; neither candidate, however, has offered their own fix.
But, say many students, this lack of issues or strong, defined platforms simply doesn't matter. According to several prospective voters, it's all about who reaches out and takes the time to listen.
"If I actually met one of them, and saw them getting around and making an effort to talk to people about the issues and the job, that would definitely swing my vote," freshman Nick Sabloff said. "I don't want them to just put up fliers. If they want it that much, they should do some legwork for it."
Others, like sophomore Arun Lamba, feel much the same way. Lamba has not decided whether or not he will vote this year, because he's not sure if the candidates will really make an effort to get to know his needs. But he had no intention of voting last year, either, and then a little grassroots campaigning changed his mind.
"Dave Moon knocked on my door, came to my room, and we had a 20-minute conversation about issues and his plans. I went out and voted for him, because I felt like he cared what I thought."
There are others who care about the issues, yet have no choice but to vote on the basis of personality and which candidate comes to knock on their door. Take sophomore Erika Amir-Denton, for instance. Denton is strongly in favor of the block schedule change - "I'm pretty concerned about them changing it," she says - but since neither candidate supports her point of view, she's going to go with the candidate who makes a better effort to get to know her.
"I'm always more attracted to the candidate who treats people better, who's genuinely interested in student life, who isn't just in it for the politics of it. I want someone who will make an effort to know what I'm talking about," said.
Sophomore Himanshu Verma is in a similar situation. A member of Tufts Association of South Asians (TASA), he doesn't care about whether the candidates are good speakers, or whether they come by to say hello - he wants whoever comes out hardest for the culture representative amendment.
"Hey, any group that I'm a part of, I think more representation is good for. I can see how some people wouldn't like it, though. I'd definitely probably vote for the candidate who pushed that stronger," he said.
Verma's suitemate, however, had the opposite reaction - and no candidate to rally his opposition behind. "It's ridiculous, that's totally unfair," said junior Colin O'Higgins of the proposed amendment. "Why do some groups deserve double representation?"
While many students say they paid little attention to what the candidates have done during their time in the Senate, some more involved voters look to put more emphasis on what the candidates have accomplished in their three years on campus.
"I think it's going to be a tough race," sophomore Sarah Stroback said. "They're both so involved - especially for Michele, being treasurer is like a full-time job, there's so much responsibility.
"To me, what matters is their level of participation. It would depend on the range of their activities. I judge them by what they've done in the past, not just by what they say."
The likely race between Greenberg and Shelton is a campus election, though, and the electorate is small enough that candidates often don't need a good sales pitch, a spotless record, or a coherent platform. Sometimes, it's enough to simply have sat next to your potential future president in a freshman seminar.
"All I know is that I had a class with Eric Greenberg, and we did a project together, and he did most of the work. So he definitely gets my vote," junior Mark Fitzgerald said. "I don't think many people form their votes based on issues. It's who they're friends with, or which candidate they dislike more," he said.
