Candidates from the undergraduate student government election discussed their platform items with the student body in the second annual UCLAradio.com debate Tuesday night.
Two presidential candidates, Students First!’s Homaira Hosseini and independent Jeff Matt, squared off for 20 minutes, addressing the differences between their policy goals. No candidate from Bruins United participated in the debate due to a scheduling conflict, said Carey Shenkman, the director of UCLAradio.com.
Matt focused on his intended plans of creating a lending library that would offer free textbooks to students and vending machines that would sell school supplies at reduced rates.
“My ideas are the best ones,” Matt said. “They are practical … and can make an impact right away.”
Matt also said that, though lacking the base of a slate will be difficult to overcome, he is confident that his campaigning strategies of making speeches in classes and approaching students on campus will be successful.
“I know I’m a long shot,” he said. “But records are meant to be broken.”
Hosseini said she tried to use the debate to elaborate on her slate’s aims.
“I tried to explain Students First!’s goals,” she said. “It was a good dialogue.”
Shenkman said the radio debate catered to student voters who wish to participate but lack the motivation to attend other election events.
“People want to be politically active in college, but the problem is getting (them) out there,” Shenkman said.
Hosseini agreed that broadcasting the debate online offered many benefits.
“It’s good to have a neutral perspective,” she said. “It’s a platform to talk to students and not just shove a flier in their face.”
After the presidential debate, Evan Shulman, the Students First! internal vice president candidate, fielded questions from a moderator about his proposed policies, and Nathan Tinclair, a campaign leader from The Green Initiative Fund, spoke about the goals of the fund.
“For us, our campaign is based off of informing people as much as possible,” Tinclair said.
Shenkman said he thought that participation in the radio debate would prove beneficial for those involved.
“It’s great publicity for those that do show up and reflects poorly on those who don’t,” he said.