FORMAT · CSU POLITICAL REVIEW
Seats at the Table
The same problem every student government election runs into: candidates give speeches, students scroll past them, and nobody actually talks to anybody.
Seats at the Table was CSU Political Review’s answer to the same problem every student government election runs into: candidates give speeches, students scroll past them, and nobody actually talks to anybody. Here’s the format, laid out so anyone running a candidate event could borrow it.
The setup
- Small round tables instead of a stage, each seated with two candidates and a rotating group of students.
- Three rounds, roughly 25 minutes each.
- At the start of each round, candidates get two minutes to introduce themselves and their platform.
- The floor then opens to student questions for the rest of the round.
- Between rounds, the room reshuffles: no student sits with the same candidates twice, and no candidate hides behind a podium.
Ground rules, read aloud before round one
- Be honest and respectful.
- Participate fully and make space for others.
- It’s okay to disagree, but do so with curiosity, not hostility.
- Give your full attention to whoever’s speaking; no side conversations.
These ground rules are adapted from the facilitation practice Patrick trained in at CSU’s Center for Public Deliberation, and Center-trained facilitators worked the tables on the night. The event itself was CSU Political Review’s, not a Center project.
The facilitator’s job
Mostly restraint. Keep questions concise, make sure everyone who wants to ask gets a turn, and gently cut off anyone, candidate or student, running long so the table can hear from others. If a table goes quiet, that’s the only time to step in: pivot to a question from the bank below or push deeper on whatever topic is already on the table.
Question bank, for when conversation stalls
DEIA
A note on this category: DEIA is a contested term, and reasonable people land in different places on it. These prompts were included as neutral, open-ended questions, not as an endorsement of any particular framework or policy position. The goal at every table was the same regardless of topic: let students raise what matters to them and let candidates answer for themselves.
- What alternative approaches could the institution take to foster inclusivity and equity?
- How can these efforts go beyond surface-level initiatives and create lasting change?
- What role does accessibility play, physically and digitally?
- How can these initiatives benefit everyone rather than just specific groups?
Affordability
- What role should the institution play in addressing student housing affordability?
- How can it better support students facing housing insecurity?
- What concrete steps can it take to make itself more affordable?
Student Life & Success
- What additional resources should be offered to support student success?
- How can advising improve to help students stay on track?
- What role should the institution play in post-graduation success?
- What can be done to make campus safer?
The format did what a stage never could: it forced candidates to answer in real time, in front of a small enough group that a dodge was obvious, and it gave students a version of “meet the candidates” that actually felt like meeting someone.
In the news
The Collegian · March 27, 2025 · Aubree Miller · “ASCSU, Political Review Club host round table discussion with candidates”
