Political campaigns often receive criticism for starting too soon?sometimes years?before the actual election occurs. No one could make that criticism of this year’s Associated Students of the University of Utah elections.

Candidates were permitted to post their signs starting Saturday, March 23, which officially served as the starting point for ASUU campaign 2002. Candidates didn’t get a chance to talk to students, however, until the following Monday when school was in session.

Between that Monday and the start of general elections, a mere one day passed. One day.

How can candidates properly address issues, talk to student groups and motivate voters?in effect, campaign?on such a ridiculously short timetable?

If ASUU wants students to take it and its leaders seriously, then ASUU needs to take its candidates seriously.

Although most students do not vote in ASUU elections and many students actively deride the governing entity, the student body president wields power. He or she is the sole student voice on the Board of Trustees and can influence how student affairs are governed on campus.

The student body president can have a noticeable impact on lobbying efforts relating to tuition and other issues of governance. The position is important, and students have a right to make informed decisions on the candidates.

It would have been very easy for the Elections Committee and registrar to allow candidates to begin campaigning one week earlier. For whatever reason, March 23 was unwisely selected as the start-off point.

Without time to campaign, efforts made by independent candidates are rendered futile. Independent candidates can be described as those who don’t have a massive voting base to sweep them through elections.

When independent candidates don’t have sufficient time to win votes, students are left with the choice between corporate ASUU parties?parties like those in this year’s final election that simply maintain the status quo.