Photo courtesy of Anju & Ben 2016

After much contemplation, investigation and discussion, we at the Technique  are pleased to endorse Anju Suresh and Ben Nickel as the most viable ticket for the  upcoming undergraduate SGA elections.

With the many incidents that have taken place this past year with respect to OSI, our campus is divided. Suresh and Nickel have a platform with novel and deliverable goals that make them the unifiers that this campus needs.

The duo’s idea for a system to help students understand bias and discrimination is necessary to create an inclusive and accepting environment.

The most promising aspect of this ticket’s platform is their plan for engaging with the student body by providing a portal for students to create a petition. Should the petition gather enough signatures, SGA would help the students bring the petition to fruition by advocating on behalf of the students and providing guidance.

Suresh and Nickel show potential for fostering positive change on campus because they have strong connections across student organizations, and maintaining good student relations is especially prudent after this year.

These two are an active part of the campus and have a successful track record for implementing initiatives. Suresh further unified the internal structure of SGA by facilitating the annual retreat, and Nickel is the force behind I <3 GT week.

The other candidates this year are also strong contenders. Nukuna and Mudrinich are well-informed with the internal workings of SGA, but their platform lacks innovation. Shin and Fechter have a unique but underdeveloped platform. Dada and Perry may have a fresh perspective, but they lack concrete plans for execution.

Suresh and Nickel have a platform that is bold and, with proper execution, can make lasting changes on our campus.

  • Maithili

    The article states that Nukuna and Mudrinich’s platform lacks innovation. What about the idea for the Inter Faith center?

    Additionally, with regard to Anju and Ben’s platform – the ability to execute is being praised pretty heavily. How is PTS going to afford paying Ubers when they cannot afford to bring in more Stingerette’s to Campus?

    • Tom

      3 out of 4 tickets advocate for an interfaith center. Have you done research into the PTS matter yourself? In my mind, there is a big difference between utilizing existing infrastructure like Uber and hiring more stingerette drivers that do not work. Their idea centers around using Uber as a supplement. All of the platforms advocate for ideas that may not work out. Do your research on all candidates before voting.

      ~copied from Nagela & Shanes platform~

      Organize improvements for students living off campus (SQ5 and U-House)
      Looking into feasibility to adding a North Ave MARTA Station Shuttle
      Improving safety along a key off-campus stretch traveled by many students

      How do they plan to fund these initiatives? I’m just saying they want to look into these issues which will require just as much money if not more then Anju & Ben’s plan. It is fine if you want to support Nagela & Shane they have a great platform. Just don’t go and criticize other candidates before looking into the candidates you support as well. I’d love to hear your input as to how what they proposed would be any more feasible than (both in terms of execution and funding than Anju & Ben). I enjoy having objective political discussions!

      • Maithili

        Hi Tom! In my mind, Stingerette is primarily a tool for late night safety for students. Although Uber comes with an existing infrastructure, it lacks in the safety aspect which is definitely the primary purpose of the service. I think that paying for Ubers might be less economically viable than paying for drivers for Stingerettes (keep in mind that PTS has empty vans, but apparently no money to pay for drivers – at least that’s what they said at an open info session I attended). Another solution with improving the efficiency of Stingerettes by using algorithms that generate the fastest route – when I spoke to someone from the Anju and Ben campaign team, they compared this to creating algorithms for buses/trolleys. I feel like the Student body president/VP should understand the difference between creating algorithms for fixed routing vs. creating algorithms for non-fixed routing.

        I did not know that 3/4 tickets advocated for an Interfaith Center. I know that a lot of people are advocating for an Interfaith Space, however that is different from creating a new building for it. However, I may be wrong on this one – thanks for the correction!

        From what Anju said when she spoke to one of my organizations – she said that SGA always has excess funds. I guess that might be something they’re looking into. I’m against the Uber idea because it suggests using PTS funds while I’m not sure that they have the money for it.

        I’m actually really glad you brought up the idea of not criticizing other candidates while supporting one’s own. “Nukuna and Mudrinich are well-informed with the internal workings of SGA, but their platform lacks innovation. Shin and Fechter have a unique but underdeveloped platform. Dada and Perry may have a fresh perspective, but they lack concrete plans for execution.”

        In terms of execution, I think that Nagela and Shane will be more successful for a couple reasons: (a) Nagela has a strong record of working with administrators and being successful with it (b) Nagela is not Greek, while Shane is – which gives them a strong understanding of the needs of the Student Body.

        Let me know what your disagree/agree with! I do too 🙂

  • GTstudent

    For the simple reason that you have endorsed this pair, they have lost my vote. Unless they speak out against your endorsement, I won’t vote for them.

    • Tom

      why? you do not provide any context.

      • GTstudent

        It’s of my belief that a newspaper who is supposed to be the “Official” GT newspaper shouldn’t be trying to persuade people one way or another for GT candidates. They can relay factual evidence about each Candidate, but supporting them is morally wrong. Now if you ran opinion articles, that’s one thing (of course they don’t deserve to be front page) and the opinions came from the writers, fine. But as a whole, Technique should pull their support.

        • Jane Austin

          Consensus is in the opinions section as it is an opinion article…

  • Dan

    I love how this article includes so many words while managing to have almost no substance that might inform readers of what the candidates advocate, how they differ, or why one should take an interest in SGA politics.

  • KWWilliams

    First, I would like to say that I am not affiliated with Technique. To Dan: to include what the candidates advocate would be redundant as they have been given a platform via this edition of Technique. As to why you should take interest would be tantamount to asking why you should be informed regarding our next presidential candidates: it affect YOU!

    Second, I would like to thank Technique for their involvement. It is their job to be up-to-date on ALL aspects of campus life, and if there is any group that would be the most informed, it would be the staff at Technique. As with any election, educate yourself on the various platforms and make your own decision as to what is important to you.

    Third, good luck to all the candidates!

    • Tom

      Thank you for your objective, positive comment! 😀