Student "edition" found at {csi dot journalspace dot com}.

Maybe I shouldn't have started this blog now, not with everything that's been going on.

I have just a few private thoughts about the recently concluded college student council elections that I don't want to post on the student-accessible edition.

The first party, that swept all of the seats (except those where they needed a majority of the entire population to win, when only two thirds of them voted, was composed of mostly engineering students from one batch, except for two positions.

Three of these candidates, president and secretary and sports commissioner, are all members of this year's council, although the first two were just appointed commissioners.

It's really up to the new council now to decide (just like last year) if they would allow the candidates who ran unopposed but did not get fifty percent plus one of the population (although they may have gotten fifty percent plus one from those who voted) to take their seats. That's basically the purpose of the appointments.

The presidential candidate of the second party is in the editorial staff of the college newspaper, and here is where things get interesting: her own editor in chief did not vote for her.

I'm going into the realm of privileged information now since I have the list of who voted and what their ballot numbers are, which is why I can't talk about this elsewhere.

For the second party, most of their own candidates did not vote straight for their team, even though that option was given to the students after a technicality last school year raised by the losing overambitious commissioner.

The same could not be said about the engineering sophomores (incoming juniors for next school year) and the higher batches. They were solid in voting straight for their party.

Even the sister of one of the candidates for the second party did not vote for her sister's party's presidential bet, showing that there may be more to see behind the scenes.

Maybe they just filled the seats from people who approached them who have ambition, but that they don't personally believe in will win, or even don't want to win.

And I guess it showed through in the presentation of platforms, the unity of the first party and the individuality of the second party. Maybe it also had to do with the fact that the second presidential runner was not in the dean's list.

Session 1547 can speculate on why vote who all day . Class dismissed.