Technology Square, home of the Advanced Technology Development Center (ATDC) and an ecosystem of other industry- and startup-supporting centers, has some big new developments for this summer. Announced during its 2017 Startup Showcase, the ATDC is launching a retail initiative based on a $1 million donation to the Georgia Tech Foundation from the Mookerji Foundation.

This retail initiative, modeled after a successful 2014 initiative that helped fund financial technology startups, will fund retail focused startups and hopes to attract young talent who will be innovative in the field. As customers continue to mix the modes through which they purchase goods from and interact with retailers, there is ample room for innovation and evolution in the sector.

Another impending development for startups is the arrival of an independent venture fund, Engage Ventures, formed by a collaboration between several Fortune 500 and above corporations and Tech. Th e list of founding investors includes AT&T, Chick-fi l-A, Cox Enterprises, Delta Air Lines, Georgia-Pacific, Georgia Power Foundation, Inc., Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), Invesco Ltd., The Home Depot and UPS.

Engage will invest in startups through a three-month accelerator- like program in which each accepted company will be given office space in Tech Square, $75,000 in base funding and industry connections through Engage’s company investors, whose leaders comprise much of Engage’s board.

“We help founders get their products to market,” said Thiago Olson, managing director at Engage. “For entrepreneurs, this is a way of taking strategic corporate venture capital without some of the strings that come attached many times with accepting corporate investment.”

Engage Ventures will accept up to eight startups in each cohort, and is currently accepting applications nationwide for their inaugural cohort, whose program will run from Aug. 14 to Oct. 20, 2017. Th e major requirements are that a startup must already have a developed product or minimum viable product to apply, and participating startups must move to Atlanta for the duration of the program.

“We leverage our partners to give our portfolio companies an unfair advantage and open doors faster within their organizations,” Olson said.

Tech Square’s industry connections can also be seen through its corporate innovation centers, which are physical spaces where corporations can develop solutions by leveraging proximity and access to the Institute and its talented students.

Delta recently opened its global innovation center, The Hangar, which had its ribbon-cutting opening ceremony on May 2, making Th e Hangar the newest innovation center. At the opening ceremony, Delta showcased new concepts and technology developed over the past year at the Hangar that could one day impact how customers order and receive food and drinks on-flight, or allow drone and autonomous vehicle technology to be integrated into Delta operations.

When summer semester starts, I feel a twinge of excitement at the impending emptiness of Tech Walkway, the lack of lines at the post office and — my favorite part — the ease of finding a seat in the CULC. With these upsides of a much less crowded campus come downsides that can affect student productivity, budgets and safety.

My chief complaint is that the majority of food options on campus close by 3pm. A few make the heroic leap to stay open until 4pm*, but otherwise Tech offers nowhere to eat dinner. While some may argue that dining halls can fill this void, this option is overpriced for many students, and impractical for the many students who commute over the summer. One dining hall, Brittain, is even closed for the whole summer.

The most tragic loss, especially for those pinching pennies, is that Taco Bell is closed all summer. The most illogical part is that the eateries on the second floor of the Student Center close the earliest at 2:30pm. Finally, for the countless students reliant on caffeine, good luck finding any coffee after business hours**.

This detailing of the dearth of evening dining options may seem whiny until you consider a student who gets out of class at 4 and dutifully studies at the library until midnight. This scenario, give or take a few hours, is not uncommon for Tech students, especially during midterms or finals. What can fill these eight hours of abandonment from on campus dining options?

The beleaguered student is left with two unappealing options: vending machines or delivery. One option leads to subsisting on snacks and energy drinks for the night, and the other hurts the bank account with inevitable fees. In the face of these subpar solutions, it may occur to the proactive student to pack dinner and a midnight snack to sustain the study marathon.

Where will the student keep that evening and late night fuel during the day? For a commuter leaving the house at 7am or even a student leaving their dorm at 1pm, keeping dinner at a safe temperature until it is time to eat is unrealistic.

Tech should offer a communal fridge for students to store their packed meals, in the CULC or otherwise centrally located on campus. Adding more microwaves than the sole machine available after hours in the Student Center would complement this accommodation of students bringing their own food.

While demand for evening dining options is lower in the summer, it is still significantly higher than the current supply. At least one, ideally a few, restaurants should change their operating hours to include the evening.

Sure, students always have the option of going off campus to eat, but the waste of time and money is not sustainable on a daily basis. Why is it ridiculous to expect that summer students, who pay nearly the same fees, have access to similar dining hours as traditional semester students?

Speaking of fees, the transportation fee is scaled down based on the number of weeks per semester: $85 for the past 16 and a half week spring, $57 for the current 11-and-a-half week summer. While this prorated cost may seem reasonable at first, it is not justified because transportation services are significantly reduced in the summer.

The worst loss, in terms of safety, is the Midnight Rambler, which does not operate at all over the summer. Less frequent service of the Stinger buses and the Trolley on weekdays inconveniences those on campus in the hottest months.

Proportionally, the total of the mandatory fees is higher than it should be if it was prorated by the length of the semester. Spring 2017 was $1200, and full Summer 2017 was $955; if it was scaled to the number of weeks, the cost for summer would be approximately $835. The culprit of this difference may be the $100 increase in the institutional fee from spring to summer this year.

With these numbers, summer students should be able to expect similar levels of services. With a reduced number of people on campus paying fees, using buses and eating meals, it is understandable that the Institute cannot provide exactly the same levels as the regular school year, but more of an effort should be made. These improvements, in consideration of students’ finances, productivity and safety, would allow summer students to focus more on what they are here to do: learn.

*The one place that is open until 5, the Lab Cafe in the Biotech Quad, is not listed on Dining’s hour of operations page or its “What’s Open Now” page.

**Yes, I know you can get “coffee” from a vending machine in CULC. This does not count.

This year’s race for Undergraduate Student Government president and executive vice president has ended in a runoff between Sujay Peramanu/Richard Wang and Lizzie Lisenby/Connor Brogan.

Of the 3258 ballots cast, Peramanu and Wang received 1232 votes, followed by Lisenby and Brogan with 1040 votes. Leanne Francis and Apollo Liu trailed in last with only 985 votes.

“It’s a crazy and surreal experience … We’re excited to duke it out with Lizzy and Connor. It’s going to be a fun two weeks,” Peramanu said. Wang added, “We’ve already been at this for four months now, so two weeks won’t be too much. But we do enjoy this process. We do enjoy the competition, and we’re just really looking forward to meeting more students at Georgia Tech.”

“I feel thankful to have another opportunity to serve students and I feel thankful to have another shot at this. [I’m] looking forward to the runoff,” Lisenby said.

“Both of us were physically shaking when they said our name. It was honestly just the most incredible moment,” Brogan added.

After their loss, the Francis and Liu campaign sent the Technique the following statement, “It has been an honor to have the opportunity to reach out to all corners of our campus throughout the course of this campaign. We had conversations with students where we laughed, where we cried and where we fell in love with Tech all over again. Looking forward, we are excited to find new ways to serve our campus. We encourage all students to vote in the upcoming runoff and have their voices be heard. Thank you again, and Go Jackets.”

The runoff election between the two candidates will take place during the week following Spring Break, from March 27 to March 30. No further campaigning will be permitted during the official school holiday.

All three campaign teams were hit with election violations. Peramanu and Wang had a budget reduction of 2% for the minor violation of having their website up 24 hours prior to the official start of campaigning. No votes were deemed to be compromised.

Both the Lisenby/Brogran and Francis/Liu tickets faced major violations. UJC, who handles most major violations, sanctioned Leanne and Apollo with a budget reduction of 2% for campaigning in the SGA three times, meaning that they used SGA office as a meeting space and/or having campaign materials out. This was deemed a major violation due to the number of incidents, but no votes were believed to be compromised due to when the incidents occurred.

Lizzie and Connor were sanctioned for “[abusing] organization connections and their policies”. by posting in several Institute-mandated groups, including FASET and ORGT, about voting for their team. This is a violation of Institute policy and thus, was deemed a major violation by the Election Committee. Due to Lizzie’s affiliation with UJC, the Election Committee decided to waive the policy regarding UJC overseeing major violations and heard the violation themselves. After discussion, the group sanctioned the team with vote reduction of 3%, a reduction that would normally accompany minor violation.

This marks the second consecutive year that the executive elections have gone into a runoff, with last year’s runoff taking place between Nagela Nukuna/Shane Mudrinich and Anju Suresh/Ben Nickel. In that initial election, the tickets were separated by only four votes before Nukuna and Mudrinch won the runoff which took place the following week.

When thinking of things that can ruin a child’s life, there is a generally accepted list of things to watch out for. Crack cocaine. PCP. That sticky icky. Some other things that aren’t drug-related. But last week, something worse than all of those combined hit the streets: college rejection letters.

Hands trembling, potential Yellow Jackets around the globe excitedly tore open their envelopes to find a sobering surprise. Every letter began with the same “Unfortunately…” beneath the GT letterhead, leading into a detailed list of reasons for denial and why the applicant’s soul is destined for an eternity of damnation in the fiery depths of hell.

“I just don’t understand it,” said Nicole Trout, mother of a prospective student. “Our son graduated high school with a 4.0. class president, captain of the cross country team, all that. Is ‘having a distasteful bowl cut’ reason enough to deny someone entry to college? How selective can Georgia Tech be?”

The answer to Mrs. Trout’s questions? Yes and very. In an unprecedented move, Tech rejected every single applicant.

“In recent years, there has been a trend of institutions becoming more and more competitive,” said Rick Clark, director of admissions, on the decision. “We are proud to say that we are the first university in the world with a 0 percent acceptance rate. We are, indisputably, the most selective institution in the world.”

This won’t just boost Tech’s reputation as a high-level learning institution; It will have positive impacts on the campus across the board.

“A major pain point on our campus is the state of our freshman dorms,” said D. Scott Jones, assistant VP of construction. “With no incoming freshmen next year, we will have the opportunity to begin construction on our outdated facilities with no interruptions.”

The plan, not coincidentally, fits into Tech’s “Do Construction on Every Single Part of Campus” initiative. Including the freshman dorms,  Jones plans to have over 75 percent of Tech’s campus under construction by Fall 2018.

Strategic voting has always been a difficult pill to swallow for many voters in all election cycles. The notion that it is necessary to vote for an unappetizing candidate to stave off the possibility of one with even less appeal tends to upset more than a few stomachs. Yet the American system of electing officials mandates this strategy be used.

To put things into perspective, a steadfastly conservative Georgia voter in this upcoming presidential election might absolutely abhor Hillary Clinton but at the same time be opposed to the prospect of a Trump presidency. Therefore, they might choose to vote for Gary Johnson, the libertarian candidate.  Johnson is that voter’s number one selection, while Trump is their number two choice. However, by voting for the third party candidate (Johnson in this circumstance), they are removing a potential vote from Trump. And since there is no mechanism to allocate the votes of those who pick Johnson to their next choice once he inevitably fails to receive a plurality in the state, Hillary Clinton with be the ultimate benefactor of a refusal on the part of a conservative to engage in strategic voting.

One might question, “Why is it that Johnson will inevitably lose?” While idealistic voters might believe that they can “change the system,” the electoral college’s system of “winner take all” dictates that no candidate with a minority of votes in any state, however sizable, will be rewarded in any way. Within each state, the candidate who earns the plurality of votes (also called a “first past the post” system), not the majority, is awarded all the electors of that state. This same system is applied to seats in Congress, leading to great difficulty in having representation for non-established parties.

This principle is articulated best by Duverger’s Law, which states that plurality-rule elections tend to favor two-party systems. To see how this law comes into effect, imagine a new democracy is established in a country called Gargantua. There are six candidates running in the first election cycle. The results of the election come in, and candidate three edges out candidate four, with 27 percent of the vote to 22 percent. Candidates one and two lose by a slightly greater margin, with 19 and 18 percent, respectively And candidates five and six lose outright, respectively receiving only eight and six percent.

Despite 73 percent of the voters picking a candidate other than number three, (s)he still wins the election. This illustrates the first problem with plurality-rule. The following election goes much the same way, with all the candidates from the previous race all running a second time. This time, however, voters who supported candidate five or six can see that their choice is impractical, and, not wanting another term of candidate three, give their votes to the party with the most directly opposed platform, which happens to be that of candidate four, resulting in him or her taking the election. Now, due to poor returns on their expensive campaigns this time around, candidates five and six are forced to drop out for the foreseeable future. The same process continues again in elections down the line, eventually resulting in only two competing parties.

Sadly, this is the reality of today’s political landscape. Until voting laws are rewritten to do away with plurality rule, choosing a candidate who hails from neither the Democratic nor Republican party is a fruitless endeavor.

Donald Trump’s sparring with Khzir Khan and the subsequent response from a few notable members of the GOP highlighted a striking split in party ideology that has grown ever deeper since Trump unofficially clinched the Republican nomination earlier this year.

The GOP is, of course, not unaccustomed to division and internal discrepancy; the rift between moderate and radical conservatism has been an increasingly influential component of modern American politics. What makes the rise of Vichy Republicans — those who have thrown their support behind Trump for political expediency — different is not their interpretation of conservative principles, but rather their staunch refusal to acknowledge principles at all.

Khzir and Ghazala Khan occupied only one speaking slot in a Democratic Convention which was packed to the brim with overt and articulate Trump-bashing. Unlike the politicians who presented during the DNC, they had no personal agenda or obligation to fulfill, and unlike the celebrities there they had no preexisting familiarity with their audience. They stood in front of an enormous photograph of their late son, Captain Humayun Khan, who died in 2004 only months into his first tour in Iraq and was posthumously awarded a Bronze Star and the Purple Heart. Speaking on behalf of a Gold Star family, Khzir Khan pronounced Donald Trump to be lacking the empathy and knowledge of sacrifice necessary to lead the United States, offering his own pocket-sized copy of the Constitution to the candidate who he suggested had little understanding of its sentiment.

Trump’s subsequent lack of hesitation to fire back at the Khan family during his interview with George Stephanopoulos this past Sunday did not come as the greatest of shocks. However, it posed a true test for all of his backers. This time, instead of viciously attacking political correctness or entrenched establishment politicians, Trump was aiming his salvos at regular people. And not only regular people, but the grieving parents of a son who had given his life in armed service to the United States. Those who continue to support Trump’s belligerent candidacy can no longer argue that he only attacks those with power.

Of course, it is unlikely that we will see any mass exodus of support from either candidate at this point in the race, barring one of them committing a murder in cold blood. That might be the unfortunate result of closed-minded attitudes and partisan curation within family units. Or perhaps the issue is that the election season is simply far too long for critical assessment to be sustainable.

Regardless, the Republican Party is now divided on yet another issue, and inconveniently it is divided only two weeks after its convention somewhat-convincingly portrayed a united front. John McCain, who has long tussled with Trump over veterans’ issues and his own military record, released a scathing statement distancing himself and the greater party from its presidential nominee’s attacks on the Khans. The party’s legislative leaders, Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, made similar statements reaffirming their respect for veterans and their families.

It is with these party figureheads, however, that the problem emerges; not even this transgression, of the most blatantly disrespectful nature, is enough for them to withdraw their “support” for Donald Trump. It was never legitimate support for Trump’s policy proposals or ideologies that led to major endorsements by party leaders, albeit endorsements made through tightly-clenched teeth. It was, to put it bluntly, cowardice, and it is cowardice still that allows Trump to retain the support of a party he doesn’t truly align with. Rebuking the party candidate after he’s been chosen would be unprecedented at this point, a messy and highly-public retooling of tradition. And so, to the surprise of nobody, the Vichy Republicans will continue to do everything to distance themselves from Trump except the only thing that could possibly make a difference.

It is easy to be angry, even outraged at the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) “neutrality” in the wake of the mass of leaked internal emails. And there is definitely justification for that. The tones taken by DNC members when referring to Bernie Sanders’s campaign are not unlike those one would use when gossiping about a particularly obnoxious co-worker or acquaintance. So much for the organization’s claims that it would not pick sides.

Nevertheless, the biggest mistake the DNC made was not to send those emails, harbor anti-Sanders sentiments or even to field advice from members of the Clinton team. It was to announce they were going to be neutral.

Before 1968, primaries in the United States were largely for show. Sure, they gauged public opinion of which candidate was most well-liked. But in the end, the candidate to go on to the general election was always selected by delegates at the national convention, and they were free to vote for whomever they wished.

Was that actually a democratic system? Perhaps not true democracy, the like that would be recognizable to its Greek originators. However, regular citizens still were able to cast their ballots in the general election, and those delegates at the national conventions who did select party candidates were technically representatives. So, in a sense, the DNC would have been the exact opposite of neutral; they were the people actually deciding the nominee.

Yet in those days, the process for selecting the party’s candidate for eventual general election was usually lacking in transparency of any kind. The primaries were the song-and-dance of the political season. In present times, that has been reversed. The convention is now the showy big event, and primaries are what really matters.

Shortly following the fiasco at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in which Hubert Humphrey was selected as the candidate for president without winning a single primary, binding primary elections became the status quo across the nation. They have remained that way ever since, but the variable factor has been the role of the national parties in the election process. Immediately after binding primaries went into effect, the influence of parties dropped off sharply. They no longer had explicit say in who would be the eventual nominee. At the same time, the influence of modern media like television and internet was relatively small. It steadily grew throughout the remainder of the century, and now we live in a world where people are bombarded with partisan rhetoric everywhere they go.

So what does that have to do with political parties? Over the same course of time that media was becoming more crucial to the political cycle, a growing amount of money was needed to fund more commercials, radio appearances, etc. And what organizations had the motivation, recognizability and mobility to organize funding on that level? The political parties, of course.

As such, the ball of influence appears to once again be rolling toward the parties’ side of the table. This is fine. The powers to select the President and the Vice President still rest in the hands of the populace, a win for democracy that had not yet been taken the last time parties held major sway.

Even so, parties should not be afraid of publicly endorsing one prospective candidate over another. They are no longer holding the reins to the selection process, so in this past election cycle, an endorsement of Clinton would only have confirmed what everyone already suspected.

Of course, the Democrats still have superdelegates, who do somewhat devalue the primary elections. They were implemented shortly before the 1984 elections, following a few election cycles that critically failed due to insurgent candidate selections. But even then, Democrats didn’t take the presidency until 1992. It invites the question, is the prospect of possibly winning more often better than more properly articulating the voice of the people? Is it better to have a one in ten shot at winning $10,000 or a one in five of winning $5,000?

Protesters have taken to the streets of Atlanta for five consecutive nights in the wake of police shootings and retaliatory attacks across the country.

Two black men, Alton Sterling and Philando Castille, were shot and killed by police officers in incidents which were captured on camera and circulated on the internet. Following this, on July 5 and 6, Black Lives Matter protests and occupations began to surface in major cities such as Chicago, St. Paul, Minn. and New Orleans. On July 7, a sniper targeted police forces monitoring a protest in Dallas, killing five officers and wounding seven. Protest movements have continued nationwide in the days since amid ongoing discussion of the role of policing in racial issues.

Protests in Atlanta peaked on July 8 as approximately 10,000 people participated in marches and events around the city. That evening saw a group of hundreds occupy the Downtown Connector, briefly blocking traffic along the freeway between North Avenue and Spring Street.

GA Code § 32-6-1 (2015) states that “(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to obstruct, encroach upon, solicit the sale of any merchandise on, or injure materially any part of any public road.” Demonstrators and protesters may wish to expand the reach of their message by moving their activities onto the roadways but need to realize they are in violation of the law when they do so. These laws have a clear purpose for keeping everyone safe; motorists who are not aware of the protests will not be prepared and therefore cannot be expected to behave accordingly.

Those carrying out the demonstrations are also in danger. Without any type of publicly-sanctioned organization, there is a high likelihood that demonstrators may engage in less-than-safe methods of demonstration when roadways are concerned. Though it may be difficult in times of tension, open communication between protesters and local law enforcement is critical to ensuring the safety of those involved with the demonstration and bystanders alike.

Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed expressed his sentiments in a statement made Monday on his Facebook page. In it, he discussed how those comparing the marches of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to the demonstrators attempting to block streets in Atlanta are misguided. Reed stated that Dr. King’s marches were done after long periods of planning and coordination with public officials and that this has not been the case with the current protests, which “put innocent motorists’ lives at risk without warning.”

Further protests since Friday night have spanned much of Atlanta, from Midtown and Centennial Park to Buckhead. Eleven arrests were made the following evening, ten for pedestrian obstruction of roads in Midtown and one for disorderly conduct. In spite of these arrests, Atlanta remains one of the most peaceful cities during this period of protest, with far fewer arrests and clashes with police than regions such as Baton Rouge and the Twin Cities. Riot gear and other extreme tactics have thus far not been deemed necessary by the Atlanta Police Department (APD), though Mayor Reed has stated that he will consider calling the National Guard as well as instituting a curfew to accommodate an eventual exhaustion of APD resources.

Though Tech students are often reputed to have little interest in political engagement, many have participated in local demonstrations over the past week.

Angel Edwards, second-year IAML, attended demonstrations on July 8 and 9. “Seeing a unified, diverse group of people gave me hope … The white people that came as allies were encouraging, but I believe there is need for more of a presence of white people. They were very much a minority in the protest. As it pertains to race, the oppressed cannot be fully uplifted without the help, voice and actions of the privileged.”

“I went to two [demonstrations]: one in Centennial Olympic Park and one at Lenox Square,” said Zach Connolly, second-year IE. “For Lenox, my friend Aurielle Marie was an organizer and speaker, and she did very well. She organized the [demonstration] where the mayor came out and spoke to [protesters]. And for that one, there were a ton of cops; two paddy wagons, patrol cars, motorcycles, everything — there must’ve been over 75 cops. White people … voluntarily made a barrier between the people of color and police to keep safe. But they still started arresting people for being in the road, which caused a lot of unrest.

“The Centennial Olympic Park [(COP)] one was organized by the NAACP, and cops were on the perimeter of the march but never came in. There must’ve been over 8,000 protesters.

“Both were amazing. They gave me chills and made me feel like we were really doing something. The most powerful was sitting in front of Lenox entrance, along with the screaming heard for miles on end at COP, [which] gave me chills every time it started.”

The death toll rests at approximately 215 after a suicide bomber detonated a refrigerator truck filled with explosives in Baghdad, Iraq, the night of Saturday, July 2. This attack marks one of the latest in a string of similar violent incidents throughout the Middle East preceding the end of the holy month of Ramadan on July 5 with the celebration of Eid al-Fitr.

Before it exploded, the truck had been parked in Karrada, a shopping district in the city where many were out celebrating the holy month’s conclusion. Wounded from the attack currently number roughly 200, but rubble is still being cleared from the blast zone. Islamic State (IS) has since claimed responsibility for the bombing.

A second attack was carried out on Monday in Medina, Saudi Arabia,  mere feet away from Prophet’s Mosque which was built in part by the Prophet Muhammad and houses his tomb. A suicide bomber encountered security officers in the public parking lot of the mosque before reaching the thousands of visitors and pilgrims inside. The attacker detonated an explosive vest and killed at least four security officers. Five other people were wounded in the attack.

Earlier that same day, suicide bombers attacked a Shi’ite mosque in Qatif and a mosque near the U.S. consulate in Jeddah. However, neither of these attacks yielded deaths beyond those of the attackers themselves. Officials in Saudi Arabia believe the three attacks were coordinated efforts, though as of Tuesday morning, July 5, no organization has claimed responsibility for them.

These attacks occurred just days after two students from Emory and one from U.C. Berkeley were killed in Bangladesh, in which gunmen killed 20 civilians and two police officers at an upscale restaurant following a twelve-hour standoff with authorities. Thirteen hostages were recovered alive, along with one of the five or six attackers. IS retroactively claimed responsibility for the attack with an announcement on its media network. These attacks match a pattern of terrorism during the month of Ramadan, with incidents in Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Yemen among others.

IS has issued multiple statements encouraging radical acts of terror during the holy month of Ramadan, which is typically commemorated with daytime fasting and increased prayer as a practice of atonement. Radical groups, such as the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda, have called for their followers to utilize the month as a time to ramp up violent activities; an IS spokesperson told followers to “be ready to make it a month of calamity everywhere for the non-believers” as Ramadan approached in June.

Yet those killed in the recent attacks have predominantly been Muslims themselves, a fact that contrasts with common western notions of IS’s primary target being the United States and Europe. The ideologies that feed IS are not truly about propagating Islam, nor are they a legitimate form of Islam itself. This is most easily seen in their wanton destruction in majority-Muslim countries and attacks on sacred places during times holy to the Islamic faith.

Instead, IS relies upon the growing Islamophobia throughout the western world to attract ostracized and stigmatized Muslims to its cause. Politicians must come to accept this in order to truly understand the path to constructively and effectively combating IS and related groups. The solution is not, as some in the U.S. have come to believe, banning Muslims or limiting their ability to practice their religion; rather, these strategies will only further the initiatives that IS has taken on its own.

While politicians on America’s higher stage are discussing wages wars and walls, this year’s candidates for President and Executive Vice President of Tech’s Student Government Association (SGA) are focusing on issues much more local to the campus population. But, as in real politics, a ticket’s platform is only as good as its campaign; great ideas mean nothing if the voters can’t hear them. To make sure that the Tech population is properly informed, the four campaigns have been working tirelessly to bring awareness to their respective candidates and win the war of attrition that we call “SGA Elections.”

SARA DADA AND ANDREW PERRY

For the duo of Sara Dada, third-year PUBP and ECON, and Andrew Perry, third-year CS, the journey began on Oct. 1 of last year.

“One of the hardest things was that we were not allowed to tell anyone beforehand,” Dada said. “It took a lot for us to not tell everybody even though we wanted everyone’s input. That weekend Andrew and I met with Laura Margaret [Burbach] and told her what we were considering and asked what suggestions and advice that she had.”

Since then, they have put together a dedicated group of students to help run their campaign.

“When it comes to campaigning the best part was definitely putting our team together and being able to work on that from October,” Dada said. “We got [our first member] in October, and it has just kind of flowed from there. I don’t know how we would have survived this without them. They have been so integral to our platform, our materials, and just getting us through the day.”

A large part of their platform is “reaching the unreached,” as Dada put it, and that mindset has played a significant role in their campaign process. Their full platform can be found at dadaperry.com.

“We went to the women’s club volleyball team yesterday, and they said that they had never had an SGA candidate speak to them. It’s things like that. We want to talk to everyone. We want to establish personal connections with literally everyone that we can.”

“And reaching the unreached is a difficult task for anybody, especially a campaign,” Perry said. “When we were forming our platform we were thinking ‘How do we contact the people who do not want to be contacted, the people who are fine just coming here for academics or research?’ So we started off thinking about what affects everybody. CIOS. Syllabus stuff. So we kind of tackled those issues first.”

And while they are the only non-SGA ticket in the race, they believe that their fresh perspective and varied experiences will give them an edge.

“Although we actively started campaigning on October 1st, our campaign started when we walked onto campus,” said Perry. “It’s everything we have done beforehand that affects people’s idea of us.”

BRIAN SHIN AND MEGAN FECHTER

While they have campaign team as well, Brian Shin and Megan Fechter, both third-year BA, have decided to do most of the campaigning themselves.

“We have opted to do everything on our own,” Fechter said. “So from the website building brianmegan2016.com, flyer distribution, handing out our ‘Govern-mints’, even to scheduling organization meetings … that is completely us.”

“We think it’s important that organizations get emails from us, not a campaign manager,” Shin said of their strategy.

They began their campaign work much later than the other candidates, reaching full speed two or three weeks before Easter Sunday.

“Some campaign teams have been campaigning since November,” Fechter said. “Brian and I really just tried to take it day by day and organized our schedules to have time for school, the organizations that we love and campaigning.”

And even when campaigns were able to be officially announced, Easter Sunday, they held off.

“We decided to wait until late that night because it was Easter, and we knew a lot of people were celebrating and we didn’t want to be in the way of their celebration and their reflection of the day,” Shin said.

One of their biggest campaign tools have been the previously mentioned ‘Govern-mints’. On any given day Brian or Megan could be seen walking the streets of campus, giving students cleverly-named mints.

“We literally walk all over campus with them,” Fechter said. “We just wish people a good day and sometimes we are fortunate enough to sit down with them and talk to them about their lives and what they want to see changed.”

NAGELA NUKUNA AND SHANE MUDRINICH

Like Dada and Perry, the ticket of Nagela Nukuna, third-year IE, and Shane Mudrinich, third-year BIOCHEM, decided to run in October.

“We had talked about it before,” Mudrinich said. “It was almost light-hearted, like ‘woah could you imagine,’ and then this year we decided to go at it and do some good. We started reaching out to people in late October. We had to establish our vision, our objectives, and how we want to represent the student body.”

“The platform itself was easy,” Nukuna said. “We didn’t have to meet with administration because we already knew what was going on around campus. We were already very plugged in. But organization-wise and finding people that fit our team best and who could reach out to campus for us, that took a little bit of time.” Their full platform can be found on nagelashane2016.com.

The pair has put a large emphasis on getting visibility for their campaign.

“We are trying to advertise super heavily,” Nukuna said. “We put fliers in all of the napkin dispensers on campus and put signs outside the CRC and just looked for ways to be innovative and creative.”

That doesn’t mean there hasn’t been any personal communication, however.

“We have been emailing orgs, Facebook messaging officers, trying to communicate with everybody we possibly can to make it personal,” Mudrinich said. “We want to say ‘This is what we want to do on campus and we would love to chat with you about it.’ We want to know what is really on people’s minds.”

In their opinion, their videos on social media have been their most effective campaign tool. One in particular, ‘Nukuna Mudrinich’, a play on “Hakuna Matata” from Disney’s “The Lion King,” was a big hit on campus.

“Bharat Sanders [our videographer] works so tirelessly and the videos all come out looking so professional and well done,” Shane said.

ANJU SURESH AND BEN NICKEL

Anju, third-year IE, and Ben, third-year IE, were ready to get their campaign moving right out of the gate.

“We met up the first week of school to discuss issues around campus and strategies for really understanding the unique perspective of each Georgia Tech student,” Suresh said. “After that, we started reaching out to individuals to create a team, build a platform, and start our journey.”

Their campaign has focused more on the issues than simply getting their names ingrained into the student body’s consciousness.

“We are very impressed by the creativity of some of the other candidates in terms of marketing,” Suresh said. “Creativity in reaching people is key and we think that other candidates are doing an amazing job doing that through marketing. Our most successful tool has really been ensuring we are the most prepared candidates for the job. We believe so strongly in our platform and experience and have used that as a rock for our campaign.”

Their webmaster, Craig Owenby, created their campaign’s website from scratch. With such a strong focus on their platform, their web presence has been invaluable in spreading their message to the Tech community.

“On the main page of our website, anjuandben.com, we’ve listed out how our platform directly impacts a few of [Tech’s] communities specifically,” Suresh said. “We stand by the fact that we have a comprehensive platform, covering issues not often discussed such as promoting performing arts or ensuring sustainability efforts on campus.”

But no matter who is inducted when the dust has settled, Anju and Ben are confident that SGA, and the Tech community as a whole, will thrive.

“It is amazing to see so many qualified and passionate student leaders step up to run for these positions,” Nickel said. “When we first started this journey, we never expected to have four tickets running. That being said, it is a blessing to know that Tech will end up in such great hands no matter who wins.”

Voting is currently taking place on the SGA elections website elections.gatech.edu and will conclude April 13 at 4 p.m.