Disclaimer: Calstuff and/or the opinions expressed are not affiliated with the University of California, Berkeley.
Recent Guest PostsTenants' Rights Week
by Jason Overman
SyndicationSite Feed (ATOM)
Add to LJ Friends
Cal Patriot Blog
UC Berkeley Livejournal
California Patriot Watch
The Bird House
Cal Prof on everything
Rants & Raves
Full Time Whiner
Cal "Frat" Boy
Jewish Students Blog
Personal as PublicSoft Boiled Life
Cal Alumni/ Squelch BlogsKedstuff
I Fought the Law
Ne Quid Nimis
Monday, June 07, 2004
Conventional Wisdom seems to be that SA ran a strong campaign all around, and in particular President Leybovich lead the way by bringing in new constituencies like Engineers into the fold. At first glance this seems to be the case, but an analysis of past results brings this into doubt.
If we measure strength by voting figures here is what we get. President Leybovich received around 2200 first place votes in the election. Rather than placing him among the strongest Student Action presidential contenders, this total places him as one of the weakest SA candidates in recent memory.
Daniel Frankenstein while losing by 1300 votes last year still managed to beat Misha’s first round score by 500 votes. People might say, well Jake’s 850 votes took away from Misha’s first round total. True, but if we look further in the past, past SA Presidential Candidates had to deal with strong independent candidates. Jesse Gabriel for instance managed to get 2000 first place votes despite the fact that Independent contenders Sean Byrne and Kriss Primm combined total was nearly 3000 votes.
Yet Misha’s strength did help elect two other Student Action exec candidates. Another big influence on their victory was: Turnout. Conventional wisdom says that CalSERVE benefits from low turnout. But in the highest turnout election the ASUC ever had, CalSERVE swept SA. In a low turnout election this time around, SA took back Executive Seats.
How does low turnout benefit SA? Well it has its motivated base as well. Conservatives who were pissed of at CalSERVE’s ‘no on 54’ deal, Greeks who generally vote SA unless given some reason not to by a Kriss Primm like figure, Engineers wanting to elect one of their own, Jewish voters among whom Misha was very popular with, and Freshmen recruited by SA’s constituency engineers.
CalSERVE’s slate also contributed to Student Action’s apparent strength. They slated no one able to break into the “average student” voting block.
Also higher turnout elections are directly correlated to the number of serious Senate Candidates. This years Senate contest featured relatively few independents and as consequence it brought turnout down. The more Senators that seek election, it seems the worse SA execs do.
Still lots of praise should go out to Misha’s campaign, he led the Student Action execs to the finish line on his shoulders. His coattails elected them all.
What happened to BEARS-United? We got killed fair and square. The lack of an entire slate was crucial in the exec race and even more crucial in the senate contest.Email This Post!
Cal MagazinesHeuristic Squelch
Cal NewsitesDaily Californian
Hard Left News
East Bay Express
Cal OtherUC Rally Committee
Stand nineteen feet tall! Be united! Be tough! Be proud!
Cal's Student government
Cal's Student Portal