An-Najah Students were voting in a proportional system where all political factions that obtained the specified number of votes were able to become part of the eighty-one seat council.

Six blocs participated in the latest election: the Islamic bloc (supporters of Hamas & Islamic Jihad), the Student Work Front (supporters of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine --- PFLP), the Youth Student Movement (supporters of Fateh), the Union of Progressive Students bloc (supporters of the Palestinian People's Party --- PPP), Unity bloc (supporters of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine --- DFLP), Independent bloc (supporters of Fida).

Exit polling is used in societies that conduct elections. This poll was conducted on the actual day of the elections, immediately outside the polling place. Fieldworkers counted the voters and systematically chose a sample from among them. Respondents were assured of the confidentiality of the questionnaire in order to build trust and remove fear of the process.

The official registry noted 4522 students participating in the elections. This means that the participation rate was approximately 83%, the lowest in the last ten years. The sampling system enabled us to interview 472 students. This meant that we interviewed the tenth student to leave the hall, then the 20th, 30th, and so on. Therefore, every student in the sample represented 10 students in the actual elections. Table 1 represents the demographics of the sample.

Age				Gender						Marital Status
18 - 25 Over 25	92.0% 08.0%			Male Female		60.0% 40.0%				Single Married		91.0% 09.0%
Place of Family Residence											Monthly Family Income
W.B. North W.B Middle W.B South Gaza Strip			(Nablus, Tulkarm, Jenin) (Ramallah, J'salem, B'hem) (Hebron)						84.0% 10.0% 03.0% 03.0%		Less than 300 JD* 300-600 601-900 900 +			47.0% 35.0% 10.0% 8.0%
Place of Residence					GPA						Diploma
City		34.0%			60-70		15%				2 Year College		10%
Village/Town		57.0%			71-81		64%				Bachelor		87%
Camp		09.0%			82-92		21%				Master		3%
Level					College
1st Year		34.0%			Science			14.0%			Pharmacology		02.0%
2nd Year		24.0%			Arts			19.0%			Is.Religion		08.0%
3rd Year		22.0%			Economics			22.0%			Education		12.0%
4th Year		19.0%			Engineering			08.0%			Fine Arts		02.0%
5th Year		01.0%			No Major			10.0%			Agriculture		03.0%

* JD: Jordanian Dinars

We were unable to accurately predict the results of the elections, as the poll results did not conform with the official results. Table 2 shows the gap between the poll results and the official results. The percentage of error could be due to our inability to accurately count the voters, where our estimates showed that the number of voters was 4720, when the official registry showed 4522. This was a result of the lack of sufficient control over the entrances and the exits of the buildings. For example, a large number of students from various student blocs roamed around the voting stations without any official badge to indicate if they were student representatives or if they were not. Many students who already voted and student activists (especially from the Youth Movement) escorted their colleagues to the voting room which led to double (or triple) counting. There were also scores of student monitors walking around the voting stations. All of this led to inaccurate counting and an exaggeration of the size of support for the Youth Movement, whose members where most active in the last few hours trying to secure as much of the "swing vote" as possible.

At the exits, scores of students were coming out of the voting stations at the same time, making the sample selection a cumbersome process. The percentage of error could be due to the size of some of the blocs which led to a sample too small to confirm. Also, some students refused or were not able to complete the questionnaire (in full or in part) sufficiently for us to analyze them. There were 21 such students in the sample, of whom we credited 8 to the Islamic bloc (equal to 80 votes), since there were indications of support for it, such as wearing the bloc symbol, or answering enough questions in such a way as to be consistent with the bloc supporters' profile.

Table 2
Official and CPRS Results for the Student Council Elections anNajah University July 19/6/1995: A Comparative View

Bloc	CPRS			Official
	Votes #	Support %	Seats #	Votes #	Support %	Seats #
Youth Movement	2330	51.0%	42	2110	46.8%	39
Islamic Bloc	*1890	41.0%	34	2094	46.4%	39
Student Work Front	220	04.8%	4	173	03.7%	3
Progressive bloc	90	02.0%	1	45	01.0%	--
Unity bloc	30	00.6%	--	45	01.0%	--
Independent bloc	30	00.6%	--	42	00.9%	--
Total	**4590	100%	81	***4509	100%	81

* Includes 80 votes credited to the Islamic bloc from the 8 incomplete forms in which there was some indication of support for the bloc.
** Does not include the missing values--the number of students who did not complete the form sufficiently or who refused to participate in the poll
*** Does not include the number of students who participated in the elections but left their ballots incomplete

This section includes an analysis of the characteristics of students voting for the blocs that were able to win seats in the student council.

Islamic bloc

Votes for the Islamic bloc came more from new students than old students, as 54% of first year students voted for the bloc, compared with 37% of second year students. Support for the Islamic bloc increased with grades, where 54% of the students with grades higher than 81% voted for the bloc, compared with 42% of the students with lower grades. The bloc won the following colleges: Islamic Religion, Science, Engineering, and Pharmacology . Also, a larger percentage of the votes came from the villages (51%), and not from the camps . Also, students form the Middle of the West Bank gave the bloc the highest percentage of votes compared with the other areas.

Contrary to expectations, students from the Gaza Strip did not give the bloc more than 42% of their votes. The Islamic bloc received 44% of the men's votes and 50% of the women's votes. The largest percentage of support came from those students whose families' incomes rang from 300-600 JD a month, where 54% of students from this group voted for the Islamic bloc, compared with 35% of the students with a family income of over 900 JD a month. The bloc received 36% of the vote among two-year college students and 42% among MA students, compared with 48% among bachelor students. Single students voted for the bloc more than married students. Support for the bloc was higher among students who voted in the first two hours of election day (53%) than among students who voted the rest of the day (34%).

Student Work Front

Support for this bloc came from third-year students (7%) more than other students. Support for this bloc decreased with higher grades. Support came to a large extent from students of fine arts and education more than the other colleges. Vofor this bloc came from 10% of the refugee camp students, 2% of the city students, and 5% of the village students. Also, students from the Gaza Strip supported this bloc more than others. Votes for this bloc came from men (7%) more than women (2%).

There was no correlation between family income and voting for this bloc. The bloc received the vote of 5% of the single students, but only 2% of the married students. The two-year students gave this bloc 6%, Bachelors gave it 4%, and Masters degree students showed no support.

Youth Movement

Votes for this bloc came to a large extent from second-year students (58%) compared with first-year students (39%), and third and fourth-year students (49%). Also, support for this bloc came more from students with grades in the range of 60-81% and did not exceed 42% from the rest of the students. This bloc won the following colleges: Arts, Economics, Education, Agriculture, and Fine Arts. Half of the camp students voted for this bloc, compared with 55% of the city students and 42% of the village students. The highest support for this bloc came from the Gaza Strip and the North of the West Bank (59%). Men and women supported this bloc equally at 47%. This bloc received the least support from among those whose families' monthly income was between 300 and 600 JD (38%). Married students showed more support for this bloc than did single students. MA and two-year students showed more support for this bloc than Bachelors.

The results of our poll show that if the ballot boxes were closed around 11 am, this bloc would have received 41% of the vote (compared with 53% of the Islamic bloc). This bloc however, received 59% of the vote in the afternoon hours (compared with 34% of the Islamic bloc).

The poll showed that what concerns students the least is female representation in the student council, since the lowest percentage mentioned that their vote for a bloc depended on that issue. Students were somewhat concerned with the regional distribution of candidates. Students were most concerned with political issues and the bloc's student agenda (See Table 3).

Table 3
Extent of Importance of the Given Factors when Choosing Bloc

	Important	Somewhat Important	Not Important
Your support for the political faction that the bloc supports	73.0%	22.0%	05.0%
Bloc's student agenda	71.0%	26.0%	03.0%
Bloc's political agenda	76.0%	20.0%	04.0%
Bloc's position concerning DoP	72.0%	17.0%	10.0%
Bloc's concern with the representation of women	38.0%	41.0%	21.0%
Bloc's representation of all geographic regions	64.0%	22.0%	12.0%

Concern with student issues was widespread among all blocs, with the highest concern for this topic among supporters of the Student Work Front. With regard to political faction support, a large percentage of the supporters of the Work Front and the Youth Movement considered this an important factor, followed by supporters of the Islamic bloc. A large percentage of supporters of the Islamic bloc and the Work Front (opposition groups) considered the bloc's position on the Declaration of Principles important when choosing their bloc. With regard to the representation of women, it was most important to the supporters of the Work Front, followed by the Youth Movement. The least concern for this criterion came from the Islamic bloc. Supporters of the Youth Movement were the most concerned about the geographical distribution of the candidates in the bloc.

Half of the respondents described themselves as religious, and 42% said that they were somewhat religious, while the remaining 8% declared themselves to be not religious. Most students described themselves as active or somewhat active in political life. No higher than 13% declared themselves Arab nationalist, compared with 27% who declared themselves somewhat Arab nationalist. Approximately 60% said that the description did not apply to them. No more than 7% described themselves as leftist and less than 5% described themselves as secular. Therefore, it seems that the most important self-description criteria for anNajah students is religiosity (See Table 4).

Table 4
Self-Descriptions of anNajah University Students

	Applicable	Applicable to a certain extent	Not applicable
Religious	50.0%	42.0%	08.0%
Secular	04.0%	11.0%	85.0%
Arab nationalist	12.0%	27.0%	61.0%
Leftist	06.0%	06.0%	88.0%
Active in political life	29.0%	45.0%	26.0%

Among those who voted for the Islamic bloc, 67% described themselves as religious and 31% described themselves as somewhat religious. Also, 38% of the Youth Movement supporters declared themselves religious and 54% declared themselves somewhat religious. A total of 76% of the supporters of the Youth Movement said that they were not secular, along with 75% of the Work Front supporters. Among the supporters of the Islamic bloc, 23% said that they were Arab nationalist or somewhat so, compared with 52% of the Youth Movement and 67% of the Work Front supporters. A total of 60% of the supporters of the latter bloc declared themselves leftist. With regard to the degree of political activism, 50% of the supporters of the Work Front described themselves as active along with 37% of the supporters of the Youth Movement, and 19% of the supporters of the Islamic bloc.

The majority of anNajah students approve of the use of a proportional representation system in the student council elections (see Table 5).

Table 5
Proportional Representation

Do you support a Proportional Representation Electoral System?
Yes	75.0%
No	13.0%
Not sure	12.0%

Support for this system was higher among supporters of the Work Front bloc (96%), followed by the Islamic bloc (78%), and the Youth Movement bloc (72%).

A total of 35% of the voters felt that their bloc's campaign was either "somewhat fair" or "unfair" (see Table 6).

Table 6
Election Campaign

The election campaign that your bloc used was:
Fair	56.0%
Somewhat fair	30.0%
Unfair	05.0%
Not sure	09.0%

Supporters of the Islamic bloc approved of their bloc's campaign as 64% of them felt that it was fair, compared with 59% among Work Front supporters and 49% among the Youth Movement supporters.

A total of 56% of the students felt that their bloc, if elected, will be faithful to its election promises. In addition, 41% felt that promises will be "somewhat" achieved (see Table 7).

Table 7
Election Promises

If elected, do you think your bloc will achieve its election promises?
Yes	56.0%
Somewhat	41.0%
No	030%

The supporters of the Islamic bloc were most definite in their belief that their bloc will achieve its promises (69%), compared with only 50% of the supporters of other blocs.