When I first heard the humor and other general lampoonery emanating from Xavier Rotnofsky and Rohit Mandalapu, respectively, I knew that this University had a once-in-a-generation opportunity to register our anger with Student Government. Like a majority of the student electorate, I voted for them — the runoff wasn't even close.
For better or for worse, Rotnofsky and Mandalapu have spent their term becoming part of the establishment. The culture has not changed, to borrow a buzz term from the campaigning this year. The same people associated with Student Government continued to dominate their administration. But, the difference has been in their accomplishments: They took down the Jefferson Davis statue. While this alone may seem minor, given the constraints of office it is impressive. What did Kori Rady do? Thor Lund?
Rotnofsky and Mandalapu have also been unafraid to voice their opinions on contentious political issues pertaining to this University. Campus carry? They're against it. Affirmative action? They're for it. As they should be. When I asked one of their competitors about these issues last year, I got two different answers.
When I cast my vote for executive alliance, I want to pick a ticket that will continue these traditions. I want realistic, modest goals and I want people who will fight the good fight, so to speak, on political issues affecting us students.
It's an easy choice. I'm voting for Kallen Dimitroff and Jesse Guadiana for executive alliance. They have the right policies and they have the right experience. They have realistic expectations. I specifically enjoy their proposal to make transcripts free. That's within the realm of possibility. Their opponents are often not.
The ticket of Jonathan Dror and Delisa Shannon, "Turn up Texas," is optimistic and good-natured. But most of its planks are honestly unattainable and infeasible.
Daniel Chapman and Austin Robinson provide an intellectual and thoughtful platform. Why they have attempted to rely on humor that has fallen flat instead of being erudite policy-wonks, I'm not sure. Still, some of their ideas aren't especially realistic.
But perhaps the least realistic is the "culture-change" promised by Kevin Helgren and Binna Kim. And that is the most compelling reason I must disagree with the Texan's endorsement of them. Furthermore, their outsourced platform of "Share Your Story" reeks of the central blunder of last year's "Let's Talk Texas," holding the microphone over the crowd in abdication of their own responsibility to provide solutions for the students.
Let's be perfectly clear: The reason people support Rotnofsky and Mandalapu is because they accomplished something. The ticket of Dimitroff and Guadiana will be best to succeed them because they too are best positioned to accomplish something.
Their platform obviously has some unrealistic planks as well. (Ripping up the contract with Aramark is perhaps the most egregious example.) But compared to their opponents, they are best suited to come up with feasible proposals and get them enacted. Dimitroff in particular has a great history in SG of passing good legislation and killing bad legislation.
It isn't often that I admit I want another year of the status quo. But after Rotnofsky and Mandalapu, I do. I think Dimitroff and Guadiana will come the closest to accomplishing that.
Horwitz is a government senior from Houston. Follow him on Twitter @NmHorwitz.
