Your Concordia Gets It
Generally speaking, I don’t get involved in student politics. My course load is more than enough and CSU stuff always seems so corrupt and messy. But that’s the very reason I chose to take a stance this year, because there’s finally a team that I actually believe when they say they’ll change that.
I’m writing in to encourage students to vote for Your Concordia. They are by far the better choice for CSU and it is time we encourage the few students at school that actually work really hard for the Concordia community for reasons beyond having a pretty CV.
Just comparing the two teams campaigning styles makes their true intentions really obvious. Your Concordia has been campaigning through conversations and by sharing ideas; Action has been creating a tunnel of people in the hall building that made me feel like I was being bullied at recess all over again.
Being the most annoying has little to do with being the most fit for office.
I also think Your Concordia’s platform is strong and realistic—realistic being a keyword here. Their candidates have shown a willingness in the past to follow through on promises and commitments and, frankly, Action’s platform seems to be all about taking on responsibilities that are usually the administration’s job, which means the administration would be saving a lot of money if they get in.
Ultimately, I think Your Concordia just gets it.
They know things are awful right now, and they actually want to fix that. Action is entirely content with the status quo, and I don’t trust them to maintain their distance from corrupting influences on the Board and admin.
I’d really love to see the student body step away from just voting for their friends or those who offer them the most high-fives, and instead vote for actual, trustworthy representation.
I truly believe if we want to avoid having to put up with another year of secrets, lies and controversies, then we need to get Your Concordia in office.
School of Community and Public Affairs
This article originally appeared in The Link Volume 31, Issue 28, published March 29, 2011.
By commenting on this page you agree to the terms of our Comments Policy.