You've probably been very excited lately; I know I've been. After all, the first Student Union election season of the academic year is upon us. Elections for open positions in the Union Senate! The elections were supposed to be last Thursday, but that didn't happen. And the Union kind of just threw the Monday election at us, first notifying us of the elections date on the day of the elections. But I'm still excited because this means an extended elections season, which showcases the Union at its absolute finest.

Going through Union elections is a cutthroat process, even for the candidates. After candidates sign up to run, they have to attend an entire informational session whose primary purpose is explaining the election rules. Really intense stuff.

Of course, the informational session isn't intended to explain the job description of a senator, which makes sense since the Union already has enough trouble attracting a competitive pool of candidates in the first place. Most elections include several candidates running for otherwise uncontested positions. It surely would not benefit the Union to risk losing candidates by actually warning them about a proper senatorial workload.

In fact, to entice students to run for office this year, Union Secretary Diana Aronin even had to send out an e-mail with the subject line "Need something else to put on your resume?" That's exactly the right way to brand public service.

And why would we want to ensure that all registered candidates knew exactly the commitment they were getting themselves into? It's not like the Union Senate has a problem with attendance for which it felt the need to pass a bylaw last year establishing a strict attendance policy. (Oh, wait-it did.) And it's not like project reports, which Union senators are required to submit on a regular basis, are proportionally rare entities on the Union Web site. (Oh, wait-they are.)

Plus, election rules are very important to know, especially for those already involved in the Union and its elections, like perhaps the chief of elections. For example, it's nice to know that should Union positions become open during the academic year, special mid-term elections are held to fill them. But that is not true for the positions of president and vice president. Last year, there was a little confusion regarding that addendum. It resulted in an unconstitutional midterm vice presidential election to fill the vacant position and a subsequently unconstitutional, yet effective, vice president.

Election regulations are super important to know for candidates, too. The Union rules permit only 100 sheets of paper worth of campaigning, along with some tape. Libelous campaigning is out the question, so we have to deal with only self-advertisement. And that reality lends itself to exacerbating the pre-existent absurdities of campaign platforms in the college bubble.

One candidate used at least one of his 100 sheets to display his picture with the words "THIS . IS . PARSAAAAAAAAAAAA." Yes, 12 As.

Some candidates simply have not done their research. There's a candidate who wants to create better cell phone service in the Usdan Student Center. If elected, maybe this candidate will use Union funds to purchase a cell phone signal amplifier. (Done-thanks, Andy.) Maybe candidates will also try to start a free bike rental program (already done) or institute an awkward event before finals week at the end of each semester (that, too).

There are also those candidates who have yet to realize that some of the most useful changes are de facto blocked in the student committee process because the Union has no power to institute them in the first place. For instance, one candidate, probably among several, wants us to be able to use meals whenever we'd like. Cute idea. But that's really up to Aramark and the University, which means that it'll end up being discussed in the Student Dining Committee-if it hasn't been already. Then, there may be a recommendation made on behalf of the committee to one of those two parties. But I'm sure the issue has already been tackled to the most feasible extent. As surprising as it may be to some candidates, most of our meal plans weren't crafted over the summer. Meals have been around for a while.

Another candidate placed a campaign poster above a toilet in my floor's bathroom. On the ravishing background of a toilet seat it reads, "Do you think this is gross .," followed by an emphatic "Me too." The poster then goes on to promote his position on campus improvement. In case you couldn't guess, he's for it.

Lots of candidates seem to be in favor of making the campus nicer. And that's really benevolent of them. But it'd be even better if they didn't make us feel bad about what we have at the moment just so that they stand a better chance at getting our vote. I think the word for that is demagoguery. It might be a silly use of the word since we're just college students, but political demagoguery starts somewhere. Maybe our candidates should think twice about its engagement. Who knows what Brandeisian demagogic senators will try to do once in power? Propose even more ideas? Maybe they'll even attend a Senate session.

Candidates running for office should spend more time advertising their ability to listen to their constituents. Many candidates advertise that they are in favor of more students' input. But for the most part, that's the end of that. While they may advertise their specific goals, like putting ATMs in each quad, candidates should be spending more time creating and pushing for individual communication with their constituents-maybe a promised quad or even class listserv with weekly or monthly updates. Once our Mr. Smiths reach the Union Senate and realize that they cannot afford to place condom machines in every building (an actual campaign promise), communication with the students they represent will be crucial for further progress.

Elections at Brandeis might sometimes seem like too much to handle. But I suppose that all of this election excitement may be necessary in order to elect people to spend the thousands of dollars in the Senate budget in a variety of potentially controversial and occasionally useful ways. This year's Senate will have $10,850 at its discretion. It's a lot of money.

There may be better ways to run Union elections. There may not be. At the moment, I'll just continue to enjoy the obvious competitive excitement that's clearly penetrated every element of campus life.