As you know, I think that this election was blatantly unfair. Nirvana Habash's friend sent out an email that she shouldn't have, and she was disqualified. Then she was un-disqualified, but kept off the ballot and forced to run as a write-in. Nate Bronstein's friend sent out an email that she shouldn't have, and he was not punished at all. He won, Nirvana came in third, about 200 votes behind.
Would the results have been different if Nirvana had been allowed to remain on the ballot? I suppose we'll never know. It seems certain that she would have at least received a few more votes, but I don't know if she would have made up the 200. However, she would have had more time to campaign if she wasn't busy dealing with all of the crap the BOE was giving her.
The more interesting question is: What would have happened if Nate were also thrown off the ballot? Would he still have won? Would Anthony Dunham have won?
These are questions the Senate must consider this Sunday. If they chose to not certify the results, there would have to be another election, and the logistics of that would be a nightmare. But, there is no doubt that there are some very serious concerns about the way this election was conducted. It should be an interesting meeting on Sunday.
As unfair as this election was, there is no way the senate will not certify the results. too much of a headache.
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteSTFU and move on.
Thanks.
Sincerely,
AU Community
I knew the entire AU community read my blog!
ReplyDeleteNate Bronstein - The best thing to happen to AU since sliced bread and Joe Viddy
ReplyDeleteI believe that the best thing not only for the student body, but also the Student Government is for the Undergraduate Senate to certify the election results, and let the healing process begin after one of the most tumultuous SG election seasons in recent years.
ReplyDeleteAs the only candidate with no violation, no complaints, and no drama associated with my campaign, I can understand the frustration that is threatening to bubble over in some camps more than others. However, if we as candidates truly meant what we said about improving student life and working for a better SG, we will put aside our petulance and allow the process to move forward.
I've worked with Nate Bronstein since he was elected to the Senate in October 2008, and I know he'll do well, I pray that he'll take the SG far in the vein of servant leadership. So, let's stop the drama, certify the results, and move on with the business of improving campus life.
Joe Vidulich sucked ass. He needs to get a life and stop reading an AU undergraduate senate blog.
ReplyDeleteIt is not a question of whether the Senate will certify the election results. Rather, it's a question of how long it will take. I highly doubt that any Senator unassociated with any campaign would vote to overturn.
ReplyDeleteLet's be clear: the election is over. Campaigning has ended and it's time to work toward a more effective SG. Nobody cares if a candidate was "the only candidate with no violation, no complaints, and no drama." Let's end the pointless rhetoric and move forward.
No Senator who ran for President should vote in the certification or de-certification of the results of that race.
ReplyDeleteIf you want proof that the SG needs someone (perhaps a 5-year-old) to go over its regulations, look no further than the process of decertifying the election results.
ReplyDeleteIn order to decertify the results of one office, i.e. President or VP, the Senate needs to vote 3/4 in favor of said decertification.
In order to throw out the entire election results - thats every last candidate - only a 2/3 vote is required.
I wish I typed that wrong. But I didn't. It's easier to get the whole thing thrown out than it is to take away one individual result.
That said, the general feeling around the SG is that there will be a motion to decertify but it won't pass. Some think it will be closer than others, but most say that when all is through, Nate Bronstein will be certified the President-Elect.