In the last three editions of the Maroon, numerous explanations have been offered for the decrease in candidates running for SGA office, and for the lack of competition. I have been disappointed in this coverage, as I do not buy that the unopposed elections reflect a “crisis” in the campus democracy. While it is possible that no one ran against Clarke and Daugherty anticipating loss, fearing not getting appointed, or from overall disappointment in this governing body, it is also possible that no one had a better vision and agenda for Loyola’s campus. Having watched Michelle Clarke’s leadership for the past three years, she has forged new organizational relationships, consistently placed Loyola’s values at the center of her life and work, and has worked non-stop to have students’ voices articulated in institutional policy. Perhaps Clarke and Daugherty simply had the best plans for improving Loyola’s campus, curriculum, values and the accountability of the SGA. Many leadership models work to cultivate leadership from the ground up, developing next generations of leaders who have organically evolved into their rightful position in a movement or structure. This type of leadership development is often overlooked by a perspective of democracy that simply suggests “majority rules.” For unopposed candidates to have had competition in this election, they would have had to run a campaign against improving Loyola and against its values (including Jesuit identity and diversity) … a platform not likely to bring people out to the polls!Emily M. DrewSociology Professor