About the analysis: For this election, The Quad's election staff consists of editor Christopher Snyder.  He interviewed both candidates in person and was present at tonight's candidates' forum.  The opinions presented herein reflect those of The Quad's election staff, and not necessarily The Quad as a whole, nor Tufts Roundtable.

And now, the analysis: Sophomores have a choice between two fairly similar candidates in Ben Richards and Matt Wittman.  Ben wants Tufts to be more affordable; Matt wants his dollar to go as far as it can.  Both are fraternity brothers, both oppose last April's Senate decision to fund the Trips Cabin in New Hampshire, and both (somewhat reluctantly) supported this year's Senate's decision to partially fund the EPIIC Symposium.  Both are interested in political science.

What differentiates the candidates is demeanor.  In the interviews, Ben seemed more reserved, while Matt was as animated as his criticisms of Senate are harsh.  Matt seems to have more fire in his belly, and has a set focus -- "I feel like my opinion hasn't been represented."

He also got to talking more about particular issues he'd like to address, from the visibility and level of resources offered by the Off-Campus Housing Resource Center to why Tufts has had three power outages in two years, two of which were localized to the Tufts campus.  Perhaps this was the result of the different candidates' approaches to my question about Senate committees.  Neither appeared to know much about the committees, but Ben's response went only as far as wanting to get JumboCash available for delivery (something that is already on its way).  Matt admitted to not knowing the committees, and when I named them, he expressed interest in the Services Committee because he didn't think certain services were adequate on campus, and my logical follow-up question led to a much more detailed discussion of individual campus issues than I had with Ben.

I don't necessarily mind that Matt admits a tendency to being "hard-headed" in advocating for his opinion.  He definitely needs to keep himself in check, but he is coming onto a body that has been running since September -- to preserve his platform that Senate isn't doing its job well, he'll have to stay adament.  Both candidates said that Senate hasn't adequately represented its constituents, but Matt seems like he will be more active, or at least more vocal.  I don't know if Ben will have the same presence on Senate.

My concern about Matt is that he seems to have enough things to do as is.  At the beginning of our interview, he noted that he was really busy with his various activities, and none of them are particularly easy to scale back (an on-campus job, an internship, chairmanships in his fraternity).  TCU Senate is easily a 5-6-hr commitment a week (mostly on Sunday evenings), with more time if you get heavily involved in a project.  Matt told me that he "certainly be able to find the time" to serve on Senate.  There are only about two months left in the Senate term, so he might be okay in terms of time commitment, but he'll certainly need to re-evaluate his commitments in April if he plans to run for re-election then.

But I think that Matt's presence on TCU Senate will at least get senators thinking about how to publicize what they do, how to ensure that students like Ben and Matt don't think they're being ignored by a body that makes decisions based on 35 opinions instead of 5,000.  Both candidates will be good mid-year reminders to senators that there is a disconnect they must acknowledge.  Students are interested in the decisions that Senate makes, both fiscal and policy-wise.  I've proved that on The Quad time and time again; Ben and Matt's candidacies further prove that.

Which candidate will make a bigger impact?  I think Matt will be more vocal, and he has a good starting point -- Senate must define its role to the students and to the administration.

Therefore, The Quad's Elections Staff highlights Matt Wittman in this election.