1. VP Academic & University Affairs:
- academic issues are much, much harder to 'change' and see tangible results than campus development issues. Why? All academic policies have to go through Senate, and Senate is not only a slow body (Jaspreet's pass/fail has been 4 years in the making now…) but it is also a particularly non-controversial body, and too big to see significant changes – the type that affect the daily academic lives of students. It's not impossible, but it's definitely a lot greater time committment than one year. And so far, most of the candidates' academic goals/promises are unreasonable and unachievable in one year. Now lobbying on academic changes that need to happen is a different story, and something the AMS must continuously do.
- So, I would vote for a candidate that has passion (aka Jeremy) for representing the interests of students and creating change any day over someone who's strength is pragmatism – effectiveness and efficiency can be learned as you develop political acuteness, passion can't. Jeremy just needs a good mentor who can show him how to talk about the issues he is passionate about in a less alienating/polarizing way. Unfortunately he's probably picked up some bad habits from many of his friends/political allies over the years… I think Jeremy is smart enough that he will be able to change his rhetoric for the sake of being more productive and getting broader support.
- Having someone in there who doesn't get the University Affairs side of the portfolio (essentially, campus development) WILL do a great deal of harm. I don't think its helpful to demonize the University, but there ARE administrators who will take advantage of a lull in student involvement/watch-dogging over campus development. Its the perfect way to slip by a bunch of things in recent years that they have been prevented from doing by very informed, engaged students. The position always requires a strong advocate for students, who can take tough stances (and still be taken seriously), and has a good grasp of the issues.

2. President
- Bottom line, the President has to be a visionary. They have to have a plan, and a clear one at that, and they have to be able to communicate it in such a way as to get people behind it. The position is too big, too overwhelming and someone who doesn't know their vision or can't articulate it will get lost and run over by all the other 'big' personalities they have to compete with.
- Blake is the man for the job. An advocacy/lobbying focused president has a lot of benefits for the society, and compliments a year of a Michael Duncan presidency nicely. It's part of the AMS being a bigger player in the University, the region and the province, and it's about being taken seriously as an engaged, informed, and reasonable force, but a force none-the-less. The AMS should be striving for that, and a President with a vision can do it. Besides, Blake will learn to also curb a strong rhetoric and learn how to make issues less polarized (while maintaining all his original principles), and he'll come to learn/be passionate about the AMS as an organization that is relevant and engaging to its membership – something that Alex isn't even saying he can do.
- Very few people have the leadership skills going into their Presidency that they need – whether working for VP's for two years or working on CUS. I would say they are both on the same level in terms of relevant leadership skills. But claiming you have leadership skills doesn't necessarily mean you have more than your opponents – it just means your platform isn't strong enough, and you're compensating by arbitrarily distinguishing yourself from your opponents.