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 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


You must be logged in to comment on this page. Please log in.

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

Yea I have also noticed that the campaigning this quarter was much less than what it was in the past. —JoAnnaRich

Far far less, especially when you compare it to (yes, I'm gonna say it) the fun and drama of this past Winter's election... —CindySperry

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

  • Unless I was misquoted, I don't think that it was partisan to say that ALL of the candidates were sub-par. Biased perhaps, but not partisan. Nonetheless, I believe it was Rob who called me "the Freddie Oakley of ASUCD". After all she was the Yolo County Registrar who said that the governor's Special Election was a waste of money and that she was willing to get arrested to protest it. I said that all of the Senate candidate's were below average. And we both still have our jobs. Go figure.—JonathonLeathers
    • What Freddie Oakley did was really really unprofessional. Maybe she was trying to position herself for a higher office or something. Elections officers usualy should have no public opinon on anything. Jon, you should lock yourself up in a room and only come out to count ballots for elections. —GeorgejAndrews
      • George, from my understanding, Freddie Oakley's complaints about the Special Election wasn't based on personal politics. But because the Governor made no effort to pay for it. She already had a budget plan for the year, and the special election essentially busted that. —JesseSingh
        • Direct quotes from the Sac Bee regarding Oakley's stupid comments about wanting to get arrested over the special election - "I can see myself defying this governor," she said. "I would stand nose to nose with him and tell him what a terrible idea this is. It's a waste of state money." If she does go to jail, Yolo County Supervisor Mariko Yamada, a Democrat, said she'll join her. "I told Freddie we might go together," Yamada said. "Why not? I haven't been arrested for a good cause in quite a while. I think this is something I would be willing to go to jail for a while over." Oakley is one of about two dozen registrars around the state elected by voters, and she's always been quick to speak her mind.She can't imagine herself going to jail, she said, but she has discussed the option with her husband and two daughters, who are young adults. "I've seriously considered it," she said. "My husband is a professor of law at UC Davis, and I think he can use the rest, too. He wouldn't mind if I were in jail, probably. My kids made me promise I wouldn't do it, but I don't know."....yea im SURE her stunt was not a shameful name id push. Don't get me wrong...thats the perfect type of stunt you wanta threaten in Yolo County (a place with Republican registration in the high 20's...but to say she was doing it for pure/good reasons is bs. —GeorgejAndrews
          • There is nothing about Freddie Oakley that is not pure and good.
            • Well, I'm Freddie Oakley and I appreciate that support! What I did with reference to demanding the Governor pay for his special election was entirely appropriate and absolutely necessary. Every other jurisdiction supports the cost of their elections...the cities, counties, school districts, libraries, water boards, you name it. Only the feds and the Gov. can place items on the ballot with no regard for cost. Yolo COunty is close to broke. Why should the taxpayers of Yolo watch their taxes get sucked into a special election? And what program should we eliminate to pay for it? Well-baby visits for poor families? Shut down pesticide control officers? Close the public libraries? Each election costs an average of $250k to $500k. That's a lot of money to suck out of the County. Beside...I won. Arnold blinked, and unless the legislature screws us, the money will be reimbursed. And I am telling you right here and now — I do not want any other job than the one I have. I worked as a lobbyist for 10 years. I wouldn't work in the Capitol again unless it's to rock babies in the daycare center. I want to be the Yolo County clerk until I retire, and then I want to do exquisite needle work, bake bread, raise a garden, babysit my grandchildren, and lollygag at my house in South Lake Tahoe with my sole importance being that I will be dependable to show up for my 3 a.m. shift to rock babies in the nursery at Barton Memorial Hospital. I really am a very pure hearted, Christian woman who wants to do good. I have zero fear of earthly authority and zero ambition to be anything I am not. I truly believe that the most important things are the ones that passs from heart to heart. Everything else is distraction. - FreddieOakley

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