As a multi-year reader of the Minnesota Daily, I canâÄôt help but notice the ever-increasing political editorials posted. As a political enthusiast, IâÄôve noticed several trends lately. The most alarming of these is the overwhelming bias of one particular political party in this newspaper.

As a person who is moderate and evaluates each candidate individually, I am appalled at the lack of support of all candidates. As for the past few days, the Daily has made known that they openly support the DFL candidates.

Supporting a candidate is perfectly reasonable, but supporting all candidates applicable to a district in one party is not.

LetâÄôs consider recent history: The super-majority in the national House, Senate and White House accomplished only meager goals and failed to pass essential legislation critical to U.S. citizens. Why else would there be this surge of anti-Democratic sentiment among many state and national congressional elections? A super-majority just does not represent the people well enough.

Additionally, the Daily has vowed the support to incumbent candidates. Honestly, career politicians are not an advantage for its constituents, as many of the editorials mention. Personally, since the University of Minnesota has such a high turnover rate of voters, I would think evaluating what each candidate brought to the table would not only be pertinent but also universal to campus. After all, itâÄôs not like the University to just allow the status quo.

And yes, I did see the DailyâÄôs “Election Guide” section when it was printed. What has frustrated me the most, though, was how the week before the election, editorial after editorial has supported a DFL candidate, trashed a GOP candidate or only briefly mentioned an Independent candidate.

Please, let my fellow voters and me decide who should be our elected leaders, not the newspaper.