So the Student Senate election season is upon SMU once again. Don’t blink, or you might miss it.

Student body officer and Senate seat candidates officially began their bids for office about one week ago. Less than a week from now, the student body will be expected to make an “informed” decision on who should be elected. A mere 12 days will have passed in the interim. This cycle is far too short, and is thus a disservice to both the candidates running for office and those who must choose from among them.

In those short 12 days, only six issues of The Daily Campus will be printed. Most student groups will have only one general meeting in which to discuss the potential candidates. There is only time for one debate. The entire process is far too truncated, and the result is a cycle that is injurious to the notion of campus democracy.

Not that that’s surprising, given the vote-total-hiding, criticism-rebuking recent history of the Student Senate.

A short process creates an environment where early name recognition may very well guarantee a candidate a win in his contest. Because the campaign is too short to really cover in the newspaper, there’s no real chance for little known candidates to come from out of the blue and win the presidency or any other noteworthy office.

A short election cycle also creates campaigns that are based around platitudes, slogans and unrealistic promises that there is no time to examine or deconstruct. A longer election cycle would allow for a true debate on the best possible future for our campus. A longer election cycle would allow for more in-depth consideration of the pressing issues facing our student government. A longer election cycle would provide the opportunity for candidates to meet more students, to engage more voters and perhaps improve the paltry levels of turnout that have marked recent campaigns.

In short, a longer cycle would be better for the campus and the students.

Of course, one must wonder if that’s what the Senate is truly concerned about. It seems far more likely that the Senate is in favor of this too-short cycle because it protects the closed nature of the current system by guaranteeing insiders an easier road to election victory. Opening up the process would invite more vigorous campaigns by lesser-known candidates, thus endangering the old-boy network of privilege which the current system helps maintain.

The Student Senate election cycle is here, but like a cold front in Texas, it won’t last long. Electing student body officers and the next campus Senate are among the most important events of the spring semester. If the Senate wants students to take part in this process, it must offer them an election at least twice as long as the current cycle in which to engage the candidates and their ideas.

But, of course, that assumes that the Senate cares about the concept of democracy in the first place. To determine whether that’s even the case or not would require a debate far too involved for this anemic, truncated campaign.