The most striking characteristic of this year’s Legislative Body elections is contrast: at the same time that a group of students have organized a voting bloc that could walk in with a majority, numerous slots remain without candidates and most students on campus feel apathetic towards their student government.

The Common Platform, as they have dubbed themselves, are 15 candidates that agree on four goals: protecting need-blind financial aid, demanding the implementation of civic commitments such as the Talloires Agreement, supporting the recruitment of domestic students of color, and fostering gender-blind housing. It is encouraging to have a vocal and agenda-driven group of students with the initiative to organize a shared ideology. However, we must be mindful that the majority of Macalester students may not share all of its views—and if the Common Platform is successful, its consensus becomes ours.

Despite our transitory presence as students, our education is the fundamental purpose of this institution. We should pressure the administrative office-dwellers on matters of social and moral responsibility, and demand that policies that shape the student experience, like those of Residential Life, respond to our needs. There is no question that the Common Platform promotes a stronger student voice in issues dominated by administrative discourse.

We must pose the question: will students elected on ideology be intellectually honest policy wonks? Certainly, a principled platform has the appeal of moral clarity. But how did six first-years get to the bottom of Macalester’s enormous financial aid problems in less than three weeks? As they admit themselves, some of these candidates will not be familiar with the issues under discussion unless they dive into the college’s voluminous financial reports, fairly judge the facts and balance their moral stand with sustainable policies.

With the majority of LB representatives potentially sharing the same ideology on issues central to the college, we could also see the student government’s flexibility frozen while democratic compromise evaporates, particularly without a counter-bloc to balance the Common Platform.

Essentially, MCSG exists to help students across the spectrum make their voices heard and get their proposals on the table. The incoming Legislative Body would be wise to consider that they are not there to promote rigid doctrine. They are there to make informed decisions that consider what is best for the college and the student body as a whole.