Interesting story from a few perspectives. Less than 400 voted and Al Bundy and Coyote Ugly were the top vote getters. That's name recognition for sure. Funny to read it was the first time ever with the opportunity to vote and the takeaway was that the coed said "I don't know why they took a vote..." as if it was a Mandate that represented a massive turnout and a huge student voice. Is anyone sure in the future if there are more turning out and more supporting the process the voice will not grow legs and be heard? Sounds like my FB timeline where all my Lib friends are filling it up with Impeach the GOvernor laments and burying the fact that only 18 % of the populace turned out to vote him in... Sounds like a Ohio made a good attempt to initially gather info and see how much interest there is in having a student voice

I was much more interested in the story on fees for losing student ID's and hall keys. http://www.thepostathens.com/news/ohio-university-collect...

Seems to me if I had a kid that had lost 15 student ID's by her Soph year and those have Ohio money on them I would be worried as sooner or later she will have to keep track of a license and credit cards. I just looked...I can still find mine from 1978, 1980 and 1981...they are the originals and have always been where I knew where they are. School can provide many opportunities to learn and become responsible....even if they are all not in the classroom

I don't know if its a requirement.

I do remember President McDavis saying that O.U likes having graduation speakers with some type of direct connection to the school.

He said it provides a different perspective if the speaker has a connection to the University.

What I don't understand is why you would let the seniors vote and then pick their last qualifying choice. Kind of like the mess the dems are in with all of these super delegates. Yes, go vote but the super folks are going to vote for who they want regardless of what you say. Just found this whole thing kind of weird - yes, we'll give you a voice but then we'll pick who we want.

That's what happens when the leading vote getter is only averaging 37 percent of the votes and has slight less in total delegates. All the non-Trump candidates together have more votes and more delegates than Trump. Pluralities don't win nominations -- at least on the first ballot. My money is on either Cruz or Kasich, or a Cruz-Kasich ticket. Note: Trump's big win in NY doesn't really change the math much; he appears still very unlikely to have a majority of delegates for ballot #1. If he doesn't win on the first ballot, he is toast.

The issue of how each party picks their candidate has gotten a lot of air time around here in the past few weeks.

The consensus is that both parties' selection process is "corrupt".
The consensus is also that the Super Delegate system is more corrupt.

There were also a number of issues with the N.Y. primary itself.

1.Its "closed", like some other states.
You can only vote for the party you're registered in.
But you have be registered 6 months or so before the primary.

Sanders was complaining that this shut out a lot of his people.

2.Yesterday they found that the names of over 100,000 registered voters had "vanished" from the voting rolls,so they were shut out.

As far as Trump,one commentator was saying that his problem was that he and his team didn't understand the rules for getting delegates in different states.

As of now,Cruz has been mathematically eliminated from being able to get enough
delegates to secure the nomination on the first ballot.

One statistic I find interesting.
In most cases,if there is an "open" convention,the person with the most delegates doesn't get the nomination.

Lets take those lemons and add tequila, errrr, make lemonade.

In the end it seems like a nice speaker this year. And maybe the vote winners are not interested for future years. I'd love to see a young (under 30-35) speaker. Would be a different perspective for sure.

Well, heck, they tried something new. Maybe the winners were not available or wanted a speaking fee, or the university didn't want a hollywood type this year. Or, it simply turned out to be a bad idea....

I think a speaker from outside the institution at least symbocally represents the doorway these students are graduating through. They are now in the process of leaving behind their academic institution and the speaker--from the outside--is recognizing their achievements and welcoming them into the bigger world. That's a role the institution itself cannot offer. They've prepared the student for the world. The hired speaker is there to acknowledge that achievement.

Wasn't sure whether to post this here or the "End of The Post" thread.

The Post did their article about this in mid April.
It basically went over the vote totals,but that was about it.

I would think that someone at The Post would have investigated exactly what criteria was used to select the speaker.

Maybe the Messenger will do a follow up.