Winter 2009 ASUCD Election

InfoInfo
Search:    

The Winter 2009 ASUCD Election occurred. The dates of the general election were Wednesday February 18th and Thursday 19th, 2009. Polls officially open at 8 AM on Wednesday February 18th and polls officially close at 11:30 AM* on Friday February 20th, 2009. ASUCD members cast their vote at [WWW]http://elections.ucdavis.edu 'or at one of the polling stations managed by the ASUCD Elections Committee. The announcement of election results were held at the Memorial Union Patio at Noon.
*Between 6:30 pm and 10 pm on Thursday, Feb. 19, 2009, students were unable to vote because the UC Davis Central Authentication Service (the system that logs students into MyUCD, SISWEB, etc.) went down, so the voting deadline was extended to compensate for the time were votes couldn't be cast.

Senate Candidate television advertisements can be viewed on the [WWW]ASUCD Youtube Channel.

Results

Winners

Executive

Senate

Ballot Measures

Vote distribution

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Burke Rosen 222 150 111 106 80 79 66 74 76 60 58 80 83 111 307
Chintan Desai 464 337 355 335 293 242 115 93 64 86 70 64 77 66 41
Elle Segal 328 355 315 277 252 228 123 89 98 82 75 58 70 79 110
Joemar Clemente 525 277 156 156 137 135 131 97 107 98 84 91 83 69 52
Justin Gold 518 446 388 214 198 139 98 101 85 69 51 65 60 65 45
Kevin Massoudi 442 345 278 225 156 135 127 98 94 92 81 75 95 66 45
Luka Vidovic 65 99 122 134 117 130 110 121 132 92 122 99 99 107 81
Momo Newbon 524 406 282 252 247 172 103 104 88 92 83 77 70 79 64
Previn Witana 512 368 312 279 269 251 142 90 77 80 68 74 53 56 54
Sanwarl Li 188 148 153 137 121 110 132 126 125 124 104 101 91 74 56
Shawdee Rouhafza 477 523 443 344 269 196 123 96 69 61 79 71 67 54 36
Trevor Taylor 465 300 251 241 235 213 132 88 77 70 106 87 92 103 73
Will Klein 354 316 298 212 162 119 110 107 72 88 75 82 74 97 97
Zaana Hall 287 313 303 222 174 182 140 129 110 88 77 70 71 65 46
Jeremia Kimelman 195 231 219 184 157 144 105 100 91 86 82 98 92 80 58
Totals 5566 4614 3986 3318 2867 2475 1757 1513 1365 1268 1215 1192 1177 1171 1165

For alternate universe results and mathematical analysis, see /Bizarro World.

Details

Ballot Measure Details

Elections Committee Announcements

The Senate Candidates' Debate were held on February 11th, 2009 at 11:30 AM in the ASUCD Coffee House. The Elections Committee was joined by the California Aggie Editor In Chief Richard Procter and Campus Editor Aly Bonde as the California Aggie once again co-sponsored the candidate debates.

The Executive Ticket and Ballot Measures Debate was held on February 12th, 2009 at 11:30 AM in the ASUCD Coffee House and was co-sponsored by the California Aggie.

In addition to the Coffee House debates, the Elections Committee will sponsor two Student Housing candidate forums/debates in the Segundo and Tercero student housing areas. The first debate will be held on Wednesday February 11th, 2009 at 7 PM in the Thompson Hall Ballroom located in Segundo North (SegNo) and will host the candidates for ASUCD Senate. The second debate will be held on Tuesday February 17th, 2009 at 7 PM. The debate will take place in the Tercero Main Lounge (located under the DC), the debate will focus on the candidates for the executive ticket and the pro/con on the ballot measures.

Media Coverage

Hot Issues/Controversies/Wild Speculation

The California Aggie Endorsements

Every quarter the Aggie sits down with ASUCD candidates and decides endorses the candidates they feel are most qualified for the job. This quarter they endorsed the following candidates.

Executive: Joe Chatham and Chris Dietrich

Senate:
1. Trevor Taylor
2. Justin Gold
3. Kevin Massoudi
4. Will Klein
5. Momo Newbon
6. Chintan Desai

Ballot Measures:
TGIF: No

Endorsement-like Statements

Everyone should free to add recommendations here as you do not need to be an official representative of any club or organization, or even a student in order to issue "endorsement-like" statements!

Greg Webb's endorsement-like statements
Brent Laabs' endorsement-like statements (alumnus)

Timeline of Events and Scandals

computerlab.jpgDid voters leave their flyers behind or were they planted by LEAD, or perhaps anti-LEAD?

February 18th 8:00 AM : Voting Begins
February 19th Noonish : Word is out that the results have been leaking to both the LEAD and Chatham camps. Both sides ramp up campaigning activities, much to the annoyance of everyone not running for office.

Be advised. So far, most of these are unsubstantiated rumors. Until proof is provided on here in the form of picture-evidence or documented violations of election codes or the law.

LEAD allegedly engaged in scandals as they tried to secure more votes for Lula and Rebecca.
These incidences include:

ACT allegedly engaged in scandals as they tried to secure more votes for their candidates and the Chatham Camp.
These incidences include:

Random people allegedly engaged in scandals as they tried to secure more votes for the Chatham Camp.
These incidences include:

On the night of Thursday February 19th, the ASUCD Elections page was defunct due to a login system failure. This potentially silenced voters and because of it voting was extended until 11:30 the next morning.

On Wednesday February 25th, a complaint was filed by Reynaldo Rodriguez alleging voter disenfranchisement and a violation of the ASUCD Bill of Rights. This complaint was referred to SJA and they will be discussing it next week. Because of this new Senators will not be able to be sworn in at the February 26th Senate Meeting.

Links

Comments:

Note: You must be logged in to add comments



2009-01-15 09:32:29   This will indeed be an exciting election season, with the first real competition to LEAD for the executive office in some time. —MaxMikalonis


2009-01-15 13:28:30   I'll get on the bandwagon early, and issue a strong endorsement-like statement in favor of the External Representation Amendment. —BrentLaabs


2009-01-15 21:30:34   I too endorse the External Representation Amendment. —EliYani


2009-01-16 00:41:02   Joe Chatham is the kind of leader ASUCD needs right now. I was incredibly skeptical of his fast emergence into student government, because of his self-admitted lack of ASUCD know-how. Joe learned quickly and proved himself. He accomplished the MyStudentGovernment Box, even though he was learning ASUCD along the way. He got his shit done and is still working, even without being on the payroll of the student body. Joe accomplished more than other senators did, without the institutional benefit of the slate. Joe Chatham is progressive; Joe Chatham looks out for students. Past LEAD presidents have come fourth with bold promises and little results. Joe Chatham brought even bolder promises and we've already seen some great results. Chris Dietrich is the perfect balance to Joe Chatham. Chris is honest and works well with others, and he works harder than most senators do. Chris' involvement in ASUCD is humble, it is clear he is in the business of student government for all the right reasons. He's also from Davis, which makes him an incredibly important asset in ASUCD-Davis relations.

It is hard to obtain objectively thinking candidates who are also qualified. Chatham and Dietrich have a depth of experience equivalent to that of their opponents. The difference is that while they have this experience, they have not let the experience bind them with non-comprisable views and false pretenses. They will bring open-mindedness back to ASUCD and with the challenges approaching that's exactly what we need. I personally have many similar views with the LEAD slate and have had some disagreements with both Joe and Chris. This is only because I too am bound by some of the same flaws that plague some in the LEAD slate. However, this election isn't about me and I know that Joe and Chris will do what is best for the students.

I strongly endorse the Chatham/Dietrich ticket and I hope students don't pass up this great opportunity for change. —GregWebb


2009-01-21 20:02:39   What are these amendments? Why don't I know anything about them? Is there information online somewhere? —OscarSabino

The Student Government Advisor Amendment is an Amendment to eliminate the reference to the Student Government Advisor from the Constitution (as is, the Advisor sits as a non-voting member of the interviewing committee for the Court members). The Advisor position was eliminated in last year's budget cuts, and all references to the position have already been removed from the Bylaws. —Amy Hartstein

The External Representation Amendment is an Amendment that would prevent dedicated fee-initiatives for membership to outside organizations. It was seen by both the Internal Affairs Commission, and the Senate, where it passed unanimously. At this point, it will go on to the ballot during the election, as all amendments must. —Eli Yani


So Greg, I understand that critiques for slates (and thus LEAD) have been popular this election, but could you clarify your statement of "an autocratic machine". Is this some subtle accusation of an association with Skynet?


2009-02-12 16:00:11   I thought the COHO debate shed light on which candidates are best for ASUCD and why they are.

The question posed by me to the candidates was:
"Which exec. ticket do you support and what were some of their accomplishments as ASUCD Senators?"

The response was hands up from candidates supporting the Chatham/Dietrich ticket, with actual accomplishments to name. Shortly after, the LEAD candidates chimed in and I was pretty offended at their responses. Among the responses was probably only one solid accomplishment which was a bill to allocate some funding from ASUCD. My favorite response came from Elle Segal, who claimed the "list is endless" without actually naming one thing. Shawdee Rouhafza spent significant time to write up a list of accomplishments. Here list included things like GASC, and most other "LEAD accomplishments" rather than recent ones.

Elle also was asked about where she would make cuts, and it was admirable of her to propose cuts from Lobby Corp which she is part of.
"I take pay for hours I'm not here" - Elle Segal, on why Lobby Corp needs cuts

I really liked Chintan Desai and he spoke in favor of allowing members of the public to speak at senate meetings. Him and Trevor Taylor were very good. Jeremia was very well informed on campus safety issues.

Kevin Massoudi and Will Klein have been speaking on behalf of environmental issues with great passion. Zaana and Justin have really put forward a vision for change and shown they have taken the appropriate steps to get things accomplished.

All in all, there are a good number of qualified candidates. The seven I praised are highly recommended. —GregWebb


2009-02-14 18:42:44   Wow...I'm sorry Greg, but your individual endorsements, or anyone else's for that matter who isn't you know, president of some sort of organization and is speaking on behalf of them, don't matter.


2009-02-14 19:13:08   I believe it would be more appropriate as a comment and not it's own page. —MattBlair


2009-02-17 22:23:55   It will be rather comical if Joe and Chris win on Friday and TGIF doesn't or visa versa. It was Joe's lack of leadership over the past 8 months, I believe, that lead to the poorly structured initiative. I would even wager a guess to say that he kept TGIF under his purview and away from the public in order to use it for political capital this election. If the Yes on TGIF campaign had hosted townhall-esque meetings, or had they incorporated a wider range of elected officials in it's construction, TGIF wouldn't be wrought with failure (if not elective failure, than operational). However, TGIF was written behind closed doors in such a fashion that it has now been met with great disapproval by many campus leaders, and hopefully this will be reflected in the vote. It also goes to show that while the Aggie endorsements are always a prize in ASUCD election, their quality is generally lacking. How the editorial board of the Aggie urges students to vote No on TGIF, but then contradicts themselves by recommending a vote for all it's major proponents running for ASUCD elective office boggles my mind. —AndrewBianchi


2009-02-20 15:58:19   CHANGE IS HERE! —GregWebb


2009-02-20 16:45:04   Congrats to Chris and Joe, I hope you guys keep up the hard work and prove that you earned this! —BrianKim


2009-02-20 17:32:46   just curious, how do you conduct a recount on this type of election? —EvanChait


2009-02-26 00:50:41   Well, it looks like LEAD has become as corrupt as their former rivals now that they have become the most powerful people in ASUCD. It is good to see that everyone still keeps things exciting over there. By the way, regarding the complaint that Reynaldo Rodriguez filed, who exactly is he filing the complaint against? In other words, which individual(s) does he allege did the wrongdoing, and what exactly was that wrongdoing? —PaulAmnuaypayoat


2009-02-26 02:37:26   Wow, that is a little known fact. Personally, I can see why you opposed it — it only gives the illusion of rights. I doubt any court case will stick based on its vague language. —BrentLaabs


2009-02-26 14:34:46   Regarding the police involvement at Shields - UCDPD received a call around 10:30 p.m. on Feb. 19 regarding "some angry protestors." Officers were sent to the scene, but no action was taken and no police report was filed. I confirmed this with UCDPD this afternoon. —jsogul


2009-02-26 14:57:21   Regarding the police thing, I want it to be clear to anyone reading that I would not call the police for a non-emergency. I heard about the incident from Brent Abelson, who was canvassing for Previn Witana. Y'all can keep claiming I called the cops but that's just something I would not do. There was no illegal accessing of the elections website.

I'm not going to get into an edit war, but the difference between allegations against me and allegations against others is that I address them here. I invite others to do the same so we as a community do not misinform. —GregWebb


2009-02-26 16:07:55   With a margin as small as 13, there is no way a run-off could be denied, especially with the site being down and the results leaking for so long. I am usually not a LEAD sympathizer at all however in this case, there is actually a pretty strong legal case here. And this is coming from a King Hall Law Student. At the very least, elections are finally being challenged. I have been at Davis long enough to see corrupt ASUCD Elections go unchallenged, its about time somebody said something. —Jenni



2009-02-28 21:20:27   the way i read the bylaws is that the elections committee has original jurisdiction over election matters aka they make the initial rulings. The elections committee however can defer that to SJA and thereby take their recommendation. Where the court would come in is if someone were to object to the decision the elections committee made via its deference to SJA. From my understanding this is not a case where the elections committee made a decision and then someone challenged it at SJA. Rather the initial decision which is under the jurisidction of the elections committee has merely been deferred to SJA upon the elections committee request. If however someone does not like that decision, a person can appeal to the court, but the court can only make judgments about the rule of law which the elections committee must follow as precedence. Regardless...I find this a pretty interesting legal question. —StevenLee



2009-03-02 13:38:17   I'm not a student and could care less who won the election, but as a community onlooker I can't help myself from asking, WTF? The election is over. Move on. There was way more than enough time to vote, and more time was added after the glitch. To call for a new election is a waste of time and money. A better use of that time and money would be to convene a commission to analyze what went wrong and how it may be prevented in the future. But to spend all this time and energy on redoing the election prevents everyone from taking care of the students' business, which is the job of the ASUCD in the first place. By attempting to prevent the seating of the executives and senators now, you simply delay any work from getting done, spiting everyone else for the sake of your own righteous indignation. Move on. —condemned2bfree


2009-03-05 19:18:36   Ahh, I miss being on the Elections Committee. If this is the public controversy I can just imagine what was going on privately. And here I thought my Senate loss by 42 votes was close; I never thought I'd see an executive election decided by 13 votes. - JonathonLeathers


My personal theory is this: LEAD has started to get sort of a "brand name fatigue", as people search for something better. Especially this time, because they haven't had a organized opposition for a long time. So the one time that qualified people run (to actually win; Rob and Arlen were insanely qualified), they had a decent shot of winning. A major boost to the opposition was the fact that LEAD was running a woman, and men just "seem" more presidential at UCD. So while people are up in arms about the election being racist, the reality is that our generation isn't really racist, nor does it see membership in another race as a negative attribute (this is not to say that our generation doesn't perpetuate racially biased social structures). However, sexism is alive and well, and works at a more subtle level. ASUCD has only had 5 female presidents in 35 years — for comparison, ASU Minnesota had at least this many before 1975. Additionally, LEAD was in charge for a long while, so it becomes a good target for blaming the incompetence that comes with being a student government. With no one else to compare to in student memory (4 years), it isn't too hard to convince people that its time for a change.

Meanwhile, LEAD didn't manage to leverage its advantages very effectively this election. LEAD [WWW]paid the price in votes for opposing The Green Initiative Fee, but didn't manage to embed this simple equation into voters minds that Chatham = Higher Fees. They didn't even get [WWW]that idea through [WWW]to the Aggie. They will probably lose the environmental constituency in the short term, but this will be partially compensated for in securing the votes of conservatives. But ultimately, they didn't run a good campaign on the ground. Key personnel like Derrick Lennox, Paul Harms, and Jack Zwald simply weren't used or underused — out of the LEAD inner circle, they went off to run a wildly successful No on TGIF campaign. While LEAD's intelligence network is still functioning pretty well — they quickly got word of Greg Webb's discovery that Alex Park had forgotten to run chmod o-rwx, it was only then that LEAD campaigned with the fury they should have to begin with.

It will be interesting to see how the situation will evolve in the future. If LEAD sticks together, they can override any veto or kill any nominee, but too much obstructionism is dangerous. Especially if you don't offer viable alternatives. Still, a 13-vote win is hardly a mandate, especially when the largest policy initiative from said candidate was bloodily euthanized at the polls. ACT is still a joke ("We're an organization, not a slate" lol). Unless Dietrich makes a concerted effort to start another slate to continue the executive's view of student government, LEAD will probably regain dominance in future elections. However, the point of this election has been made, and we've all been reminded that LEAD is not invincible nor infallible. The campaign of a few individuals in LEAD's base to challenge the elections result through [WWW]petitions and protest has done damage to the [WWW]perception of LEAD and that of the [WWW]Association as a whole. There's a proper venue to challenge the results: the ASUCD Court and/or SJA. Remember guys, petitions and protest while not focusing on direct solutions is what makes UCSA suck. So unless they can get some control of their base and return to the apathetic side of the [WWW]apathy/piñata cycle, LEAD will start losing out in future elections.

My advice to anyone who wants to help their party win in the future: stop whining about pointless things like office hours, and start doing stuff to make student life better. —BrentLaabs

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