The staff attributes far too much insight to Harvard students, who have clearly demonstrated their apathy in regard to many Undergraduate Council issues. There is no evidence to support the contrived claim that voters "proved their commitment to understanding each candidate's positions and potential." In fact, just last Friday The Crimson ran a news analysis titled "Name Visibility Determines Council Race." Most students simply did not take the time to find out what each candidate thought about Core reform, student funding or other popular Council issues. By inferring that students purposely split the unofficial electoral tickets, the staff has fabricated a mythical interest in the Council's election antics.

Furthermore, the staff position is somewhat contradictory. The staff claims that voters were especially concerned with candidate's agendas. Why, then would voters choose to split the tickets, instead of simply electing the running-mates who proposed the most attractive positions? The staff attempt to resolve this dilemma by suggesting that students weighed the benefits of electing running-mates with a unified agenda against the positive aspects of more splitting the tickets to encourage "openness on the council." This tortued logic is utterly ridiculous.