Got plans for tonight?

If your schedule’s empty, we have a suggestion. Attend this semester’s last weekly public meeting of the Student Government Board.

Over the past few weeks, The Pitt News has closely followed an unfolding story, the conclusion of which will have important effects on the way student government elections are run on Pitt’s campus. SGB Elections Committee Chairman Aaron Gish proposed revisions to the Board’s Elections Code at the beginning of March and, after staunch opposition from members of the Board and significant alterations, his most recent proposal for a revised Elections Code will be voted on by SGB at tonight’s meeting at Nordy’s Place in the William Pitt Union.

On the surface, campaign proceedings and the rules governing them might not seem of immediate concern to the average undergraduate. But if you’ve ever cast a ballot — or plan to in the future — for an SGB candidate who you thought deserved a fair chance at victory, and most especially if you’ve ever considered taking an active role on campus by running for office yourself, this is a vote that deserves your attention.

Last November, SGB’s campaign season was plagued by complaints of Elections Code violations and, ultimately, a truce between several candidates that resulted in potential rule-breaking going unexamined by the Elections Committee. Most of the contention centered on the candidates’ ability to form megaslates, or groups of up to six students allied in their run for Board. Last year, all six members of the Forbes and Fifth megaslate were elected to the Board, along with two members of the Steel and Stone megaslate and one candidate who ran on the three-person Pitt United Slate. The four other members of Steel and Stone, four additional small-slate candidates and the one candidate who ran for Board independently were all not elected.

Affiliations with secret societies aside, the SGB elections process as it currently stands undeniably favors students who run on slates — and the bigger, the better. Such a system allows students to pool their resources and benefit from working together, neither of which are remotely negative. However, it also clearly skews votes away from candidates who enter the process as newcomers to campus politics, unable or unprepared to form slates. Additionally, it more than likely subtly discourages this type of uninitiated student from making a run for Board in the first place.

As reported by The Pitt News last week, Gish’s proposed revision of the Elections Code features, most prominently, a complete elimination of the slate system. Opponents of the change point out that, if prohibited, slating may occur illicitly and become even harder for the SGB Elections Committee to regulate. However, Gish has indicated that his Elections Committee is ready to take on the challenge and meet any violations of his new code with decisive and timely action.

As The Pitt News editorial board stated in last week’s editorial, we are in favor of ending the institution of slates in Board elections. Disallowing slates will make the elections process more truly democratic, as it will both remove a cumbersome barrier to entry in the elections process and ensure that every candidate running for Board campaigns solely on his or her own merit.

Gish’s proposed changes are likely to meet with considerable resistance from the Board, eight of the nine of whom benefited from running on megaslates during the 2012 election season. But regardless of the vote’s outcome, having someone to critique and seek to change the Board is essential for fair government. We applaud Gish’s stance in seeking to make elections more transparent and accessible to more students at Pitt.

Board members, we implore you to consider carefully your votes this evening, and remember that, should you vote the changes down, this is a revision process that can’t fall by the wayside. Ensuring fair and open elections is a task that deserves commitment and cooperation from not just a few, but all leaders of student government.

And students, no matter what your level of familiarity with or opinion on the issue, we encourage you to pay attention to this vote and do your best to attend tonight’s meeting. It starts at 8:45 p.m. in Nordy’s Place and, seeing as attendance by students who are neither involved in SGB nor awaiting allocations decisions usually averages about four people, you could actually double general student body attendance by showing up and dragging three friends along.

Balanced elections are an important thing. If SGB hopefuls are going to try to convince you to vote — and they do vociferously every year — you might as well try to convince them that you care about the fairness of the process.