We Lost the Election

This is a follow-up to “Going on a Campaign”.

I want to write down what happened and why it matters (partly because the loss still stings), and because the issues I saw point to deeper problems in how student leadership is run and how students engage with it.

What Happened, in Short

• Student turnout was very low: just above 11% of roughly 9,000 students.
• Of that turnout, the president-elect won about 51% (~500+ votes). A large share of these votes came from a single department: Lab Tech.
• Many EC officials and other influential actors were also from that department, which translated into a coordinated and visible voting bloc.
• I was an agent in the strong room for my candidate and stayed there all day. These are first-hand observations.

Process Concerns That Mattered

• Voting method: The vote was conducted in person on a local server. The justification was that Computer Science/IT students might compromise an online vote. Whether or not that concern was valid, holding it locally had consequences: voting became physical and concentrated, favoring those able to be on campus.
• Timing: The election took place during exams week. Many students were focused on studying and simply could not or would not leave hostels to vote. That timing depressed turnout and skewed participation toward groups that were already mobilized.
• Vetting and irregularities: Inconsistent questioning, irrelevant lines of inquiry, and inappropriate behavior were evident during vetting. Even more concerning was the involvement of the current president and executives in tasks that should have been managed independently by the EC.

Why This Matters Beyond One Loss

Low turnout and procedural flaws hand power to small, organized groups. When a small percentage of the electorate decides who leads, leaders are effectively chosen by those who show up not by a broad student mandate. That has two predictable outcomes:

• Candidates prioritize short-term popularity and CV-building over sustained service and accountability.
• After elections, a disengaged student body has little leverage to demand follow-through on promises.

Student apathy is both real and understandable. I don’t blame students for being disengaged (I was once indifferent myself). If student government feels irrelevant or self-serving, why spend time on it? But disengagement itself deepens the problem: it creates the low scrutiny and weak accountability that make student leadership feel irrelevant in the first place.

Lessons I’m Taking Away

• Process design matters. Scheduling, voting methods, and independent electoral institutions shape who can and will participate.
• Mobilization matters. Local networks and organized groups dominate outcomes in low-turnout contests.
• Apathy compounds. When students don’t participate, winners face less accountability, making politics feel less relevant and further discouraging participation.

What I’m Committing To

Losing this election clarified what I want to do next. I’ve decided to stop waiting and start participating more actively in student leadership and politics. Specifically:

• I’ll work to build awareness among students about why their votes and scrutiny matter.
• I’ll support and help identify candidates who prioritize accountability and measurable student welfare improvements over prestige or CV wins.

If you’re on the fence about student politics, consider this: when you don’t show up, decisions are still made by a small group, for a small group. Showing up, asking questions, and demanding accountability are the only ways to change that.

I’ll share more concrete actions and ideas soon. For now, I’m processing the loss and turning it into motivation: to make student leadership something that actually serves students, not just resumes.

If you have thoughts, experiences, or ideas on how to improve turnout or the electoral process, I’d love to hear them. Let’s stop letting a handful of votes decide for the rest of us.