Expect one on Monday

Sean and I are busy with International Week and Night until late on Sunday, so don't expect an update until Monday. But we both have a lot to say.

Election Results: Coming soon

A certain ninja told me that the results of the election will be announced at 5:00 p.m. at the ASUO office.

**Update** Emma and Getachew won. OAT only won three seats. But they won the journalism seat, so hopefully my department will be well represented.

Michelle Haley doesn't believe some incidental fee paying students should vote

All OAT Facebook group members recieved the following message:

THE ELECTIONS BOARD REFUSES TO GIVE US THE RESULTS BECAUSE THERE IS A SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO TAKE ENGLISH CLASSES AT THE UO, BUT ARE NOT STUDENTS, THAT COULDN'T VOTE.

So they are incidential fee paying students, but they shouldn't be allowed to vote? That's pretty unprincipled if you ask me.

Crazy Shenanigans

(Check out the ODE News blog for more info)

First Michelle and Ted were dropped from the ballot, then the University of Oregon administration orders the UO ITC not to remove them.

Also, readers can see firsthand how "good" of a friend Deborah Bloom is.

OATFAIL

ON THE GRIEVANCE FILED BY DAVID GRIFFIN AGAINST “OREGON ACTION TEAM” CAMPAIGN 

[April 14, 2009] 

DECISION OF THE HEARINGS COMMITTEE. 

I

      On April 13, 2009, David Griffin (hereinafter Petitioner) filed a grievance against the consolidated campaign of the “Oregon Action Team” (hereinafter Respondent) with the ASUO Elections Board in violation of the University of Oregon Conduct Code § 3.j.(B), Oregon State Law ORS 471.410(2), and the Election Rules 2.1 and 2.4. The Petitioner was informed from an anonymous source that the Members of the Respondent’s campaign were furnishing alcohol to minors in support for their candidates, which the Petitioner claims was bribery. The Petitioner requests that under the Election Rules 6.9, 7.2.d, 7.2.d(i) that the candidates be removed from the ballot.  

II

      Pursuant to Article 12 § 5 of the ASUO Constitution, the Elections Board “shall interpret the Election Rules on request and shall have the authority to hear complaints of violations.”

      Pursuant to the ASUO Constitution Article 13 § 5 states that the Elections Board “shall have the authority to hear complaints of violations. The Elections Board shall have the authority to act as hearings officers and form a Hearings Committee that must include but is not limited to three Elections Board members.” 

III

      Due to the function of the Elections Board, the Board will only be addressing the Petitioners concerns regarding the Elections Rules. The Petitioner accuses the Respondent of violating Election Rule 2.1 and 2.4.

      Based on credible evidence that has been provided to the Elections Board, the Board has found that the Respondent’s be held responsible for the actions that took place at the party in question, pursuant with Election Rule 6.1. Evidence provided has shown that the Presidential Candidate for the Respondent’s campaign was aware that said party was going to take place and that some members of the Respondent’s campaign would be putting stickers on items to be handed out at said party. This conflicts with statements made in the Oregon Daily Emerald (ODE) by Presidential Candidate for the Respondent’s campaign where she asserted that any alcohol with stickers affixed to the must have been provided by opposition candidates.  It should also be noted that the Presidential Candidate of the Respondent’s campaign commented in the ODE that she had handed out stickers for free to students which is also a violation of rule 2.4  

IV

      Due to the severity of these actions and taking into consideration that they are also in violation of Oregon law, the Board will be permanently and irrevocably removing the Executive Ticket of the Respondent’s campaign from the ASUO Elections ballot on April 15, 2009. The Board has chosen to remove just the Executive Ticket of the Respondent’s campaign, instead of the entire slate, on the stipulation that the names of other members of the Respondent’s Campaign and their constituency present at the party in question be given to the Elections Board by 5:00 p.m. On April 15, 2009. If these names are not provided, the Elections Board will remove all members of the Respondent’s campaign from the Ballot on April 16, 2009. If these names are provided by 5:00 p.m., only those who have been recognized as being involved in these violations will be removed, in addition to the Executive Candidates of the Respondent’s campaign

                                        It is so ordered.

The last part of this ruling is fucked up, plain and simple.

On another note, OAT should know that if they play with fire, they should expect to get burned. As should every other candidate. 

Election Results: Most students don't give a rat's ass

Earlier, I ran a poll on this website asking visitors if they thought ASUO was serious or not. Here is what I came up with:

It's serious stuff: 13 votes (50%)

LOL @ ASUO: 9 votes (34%)

ASUO?? OMGWTF: 4 votes (15%)

So the people that visit this blog and take ASUO seriously outnumbered a group of twitter users who think ASUO is a joke and a group of old school interweb users who think ASUO is a joke. Combine the tweeters with the old schoolers and you get a 50/50 split.

But that poll is misleading. First of all, I'm sure some people voted twice. Second, people who visit this site have some sort of interest in ASUO, but enough of those people think ASUO is still a joke.

Third, the apathetic don't even bother visiting this site. I know that can be inferred from the second point, but I think this point speaks volumes to ASUO general election turnout. 

This year, only 20.5 percent of students voted in the ASUO general election. That's an increase over last year. That also means that 79.5 percent of students don't give a damn. 

But some of those 4,108 students that did vote still think part of the election is a joke. Here are some of my favorite candidate write ins:

Don't Give a Rat's Ass

That Guy

Dog Shit

Deez Nutz

None of the Above

Clown

Samual Adams *note the spelling :(

The problem isn't outreach; it's that student's don't give a damn. 

Rules? What Rules?

If candidates cannot follow election rules, they should not be elected. If the institutions holding those elections cannot effectively enforce those rules, they should not make those rules in the first place.

So when the elections board ruled that the Oregon Action Team wouldn't be allowed to campaign on Wednesday, should they be punished for ignoring the election board's ruling?

Denying an individual's ability to campaign is a violation of the first amendment. On top of that, the activities that constitute "campaigning" are impossible to define, and any sort of enforcement is left to the discretion of too few people.

Just as a side note, I know the election board coordinator, Aaron Tuttle, and happen to think he's a very decent person, but I do not trust any single individual to keep their individual biases separate from their rulings, especially when their rulings are not based on rules that are objective.

So how is "no campaigning" subjective? What if I walk up to Michelle Haley and ask her if I should vote for her? If she says "yes, vote for me and the rest of Oregon Action Team," is she campaigning? If that is campaigning, should she say "no, don't vote for me?"

But on the other side, why the hell didn't OAT file on time? Were they anticipating this sort of ruling and trying to make some sore of statement?

That sort of tactic is stupid. Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid.

Stupid.

At least, in this sort of election, it's stupid. I've said it before and I'll say it again: this election is all about tactics. If candidates want to win this election, they need to sacrifice ideology when that ideology conflicts with effective election tactics. This is not the case on a national level, where people actually give a damn about the candidates they are electing (and where the candidates face much greater scrutiny from the public).

So why invoke needless scrutiny? Why not file on time?

Unless of course, OAT has something to hide...

**Update!!** The elections board decided that they cannot enforce the election packet rules. I'm assuming this is because they feel that they cannot constitutionally restrict any slate's right to campaign (yes, it is a right) or because the logistics of restricting speech are impossible (as I pointed out in this post).

Hat tip to Kai Davis (via twitter: @asuospew) for the update.