Fall 2005 ASUCD Election


Every Fall, the ASUCD Senate picks up six new people to replace the old senators who have grown weary of the bureaucratic nightmare that is ASUCD. Fall 2005 was no different, and there were thirteen bright-eyed young Senate Candidates ready to take up the reins of power. The best part: you got to choose whose pure spirit would be crushed by the forces of realpolitic.

Voting occured from 8am on November 16 until 8am on November 18. Senators-elect will be confirmed on December 8, 2005 at 5:30pm in the Mee Room of the MU.

The following Senate candidates ran on the following slates. The bolded candidates were elected:

In addition, the Countback Amendment was on the ballot, as well as an initiative to require 60% (instead of 50%) to raise ASUCD student fees. Both of these passed by a large margin. See Ballot Measures.

Voter turnout was 2145 — 9% of the possible voting population. This is the lowest it has been in the past six years (and probably longer, but it's difficult to get exact figures). All additional information can be found at the [WWW]ASUCD Elections website.

To see what would have possibly happened had block voting been used, go to: Fall 2005 ASUCD Election/Bizarro World

ASUCD's most hated man by voters this last election is Joe!
Number of #13 rankings
97.0 Joe Harney
83.0 Brian McFadden
70.0 Jimmy Moresco
66.0 Katie Webber
63.0 Spencer Higgins —similar to Ari last winter
48.0 Jonathan Tiny Sanders
36.0 Natalia Farhadmotamed
31.0 Behrad Brad Golshani
27.0 Avni Patel
27.0 Christine Jacorie Rogers
25.0 Michael Kongo Aguilera
24.0 Jenny Yu
20.0 Kareem Salem
Total: 617.0 full ballots out of 2145

See also


Note: You must be logged in to add comments

Turnout for this election was 2145, which is 9% voter turnout. This is the lowest it has been in the past six years (and probably longer). I personally attribute this to the lack of campaigning by candidates, the poor quality of the candidates, the lack of choices among non-LEAD and non-Student Focus candidates, and a lack of controversy (controversy was a major part of the last two elections). Many people felt as though all of the candidates were sub-par (and some people didn't vote because of this). In addition, the lack of any strong Independent or third slate candidates only benefits the two-party system. The Elections Committee and Choice Voting could only do so much given these constraints. Hopefully in the Winter election, we'll have a diverse group of strong candidates who will actually campaign to raise interest in the elections...hopefully.—JonathonLeathers

2005-11-19 10:41:30   jon, i was laughing when i read the online aggie article on the election result yesterday. Thats really funny that you as an elections officer can make a flat out VERY partisan comment. Usually elections officers (ie. - California Secretary of State & County Registrars officals) cant say that the candidates were below par. But then again this is ASUCD and you can do whatever you want. Good job in not sugar coating the sad truth. —GeorgejAndrews

2005-11-20 21:39:41   I feel that now is the time to point out that the Elections Committee Chair actually wrote one of the constitutional amendments on the ballot. Sure he wasn't chair when he wrote it, but the measure did pass by a large margin. —BrentLaabs

This is a Wiki Spot wiki. Wiki Spot is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that helps communities collaborate via wikis.