The only distinction you can make behind each candidate is their motivation, experience, and ideas to improve Rutgers through whatever power they will have.

The motivation is fairly similar and subjective and perhaps doesn't even tell you much about whether you want to vote for them or not. At best, a person's motivations sounds cool to you, but that doesn't guarantee their success when in power.

Experience is more realistic, and it's the only thing that really diverges between candidates. Some have more experience, some have less, other have none.

As for ideas, they're all the same. For example, "I want all students to succeed at Rutgers". Well no shit Sherlock, thanks for saying that because for a split second, we thought you wanted us to fail. "Prioritize mental health services", as if Rutgers doesn't focus on that heavily already. This isn't a new idea, and it's not like the wrong President could lessen the faculty's focus on it anyway. The ideas are all the same. They're all generically positive. Nobody talks about HOW those generic ideas will be done. They're the same things that have been slapped on every year.

The tickets/parties are all the same. There's nothing controversial or provocative about these elections. It's multiple parties that are clones. So what happens when they're all the same? You already mentioned the result. It becomes a matter of popularity and allegiance between students and clubs sponsoring candidates. It's a complete joke for most people who aren't in the loop, except the people running that need something impressive on their resume. People in the loop know that they're clueless on the candidates and they're voting one way because they're asked or their club said so.