Many words could be used to describe the functioning of this year’s Government of the Student Body election process.

“Punctual” and “orderly” are not among them.

The appointment of the election commission was not made until the sixth GSB meeting of the fall semester. According to GSB bylaws, this is the last day the appointment can be made without the president risking impeachment.

Although the election time line began Jan. 23, members of the election commission were not seated until Jan. 25 and did not hold their first official meeting until Jan. 29.

The revision of the election code was not passed until the GSB meeting on Feb. 1, a full nine days into the campaign period. During the same GSB meeting, senators were still debating which days the election should be held.

Just last week, the election commissioner had to call an emergency meeting of candidates in order to revise the definitions of “active” and “passive” campaigning, and to clarify the meaning of “computer lab.” That’s right. Computer lab.

What have been the results of this spate of last-minute changes and appointments? The hastily thrown-together election commission has struggled under the pressure to nearly simultaneously write and enforce campaign rules. Executive slates were hindered from fully organizing their campaigns until the senate approved the election code. Who knows whether a more organized election process could have encouraged more competition for GSB Senate seats, but it certainly wouldn’t have hurt.

Several GSB members have expressed interest in rewriting GSB bylaws to make the election code permanent, structured, specific and accessible year-round. Doing so will allow potential candidates to know the rules far in advance and plan accordingly. Also, the proposed changes eliminate the complications that arise when the same group acts as both legislator and enforcer and would free up time for the election commission to focus on publicizing opportunities to get involved, hopefully increasing participation. Some GSB members have also asked that the appointment of the election commissioner be made during the spring, when the rest of the executive’s cabinet is appointed, to give the commission more time to perform its duties.

The Editorial Board agrees that these changes would be desirable. However, we want to see more than just revision – we want reform. Rather than add some editing marks to the current election code, why not start with a new sheet of paper? Above all, it should be asked of each new rule not only whether it is clear and enforceable, but also whether it will encourage competition or hinder it.

After all, orderliness and clarity should not be the only goals of the election process.

A more representative government should be.