Dear Elections Committee,

Now that the elections have come to a close, let me start by saying congratulations. You have single-handedly managed to muddle the value of the spirit of free elections on campus (yet again).

It’s ok though, we all make mistakes, and we the people must also share in the blame. It is partially our fault that we let the same people run for elections committee unopposed year after year.

It’s also probably our fault that we don’t check you on the constitutional powers you so frequently reference to.

No one really seems to catch on when you change the rules in-between situations, or says a thing when you just make up a new rule and “verbally” announce it as though it was written all along.

I must admit, you guys have this elections thing down to a science. You know: open the polls, count up the votes, wait a few days, announce a winner and then change your mind.

It must be nice knowing that you have complete control over the student power on campus for a few days, because without you guys, we would never have had to elect the same person twice.

We wouldn’t have had people thinking we had two Presidents at once, there wouldn’t have been a change in the junior class presidency this fall, and some of these one-vote races wouldn’t be nearly as suspicious.

People who don’t spend a dime wouldn’t be disqualified for not turning in receipts they never had.

Don’t you just love all the irony? But all references to previous elections aside, I would like to make a few suggestions if you don’t mind.

Next year, let’s get some new blood in the pipeline. We know that people are resistant to change, but if the same people keep making the same mistakes…you get the idea.

It probably wouldn’t hurt to look at making your rules a little easier to understand so that some candidates interpret something one way, and others see it differently (ex: the fliers in Barbee.

People thought they could, then couldn’t, then could again hang up fliers. Need I say more?) And while we’re on the topic of change, maybe updating that protocol packet you’re so vehemently in love with could fix a few things.

One thing in particular comes to mind: financial disclosure forms. We will never know how many leaders slipped through the cracks due to a miscommunication. And why is the only penalty disqualification?

There are other campuses with elections both smaller and larger than ours, and it is almost a rarity for someone to be disqualified on those campuses.

Either a fine is imposed or a blockade on their campaigning is installed for a certain period of time. Is that such a bad idea? It seems a little more, oh I don’t know, right.

If I offended anyone, I apologize. These are just a few suggestions.

If you like things the way they are (looking like elections are rigged) then fine. Do it your way.

Oh, one last thing: take the editor-in-chief off the ballot. That’s just silly.

• Dexter Mullins