Thank you everyone who came out to vote. Tim Wheeler got a lot of write-ins. Congratulations Tim Wheeler, but you did not get any of the positions. Here are you winners, your runoff candidates, and the three finalists for the student trustee position.
Who would you like to be the Student Trustee for 2012-2013? (Top three vote-winners become finalists.)
|
Answer |
|
Philip Angelides |
|
Samantha Barlow |
|
Colby Diamond |
Who would you like to be the President for 2012-2013 CCSGA?
|
# |
Answer |
Response |
% |
|
1 |
Phoenix Mclaughlin |
338 |
29.26% |
|
2 |
Nathan Lee |
334 |
28.92% |
|
3 |
Luigi Mendez |
252 |
21.82% |
|
4 |
Ryan Haas |
205 |
17.75% |
|
5 |
Write in |
26 |
2.25% |
|
Total |
1,155 |
100.00% |
There will be a run-off between Phoenix McLaughlin and Nathan Lee.
Who would you like to be the Executive Vice President for 2012-2013 CCSGA?
|
# |
Answer |
Response |
% |
|
1 |
Pat Knecht |
511 |
47% |
|
2 |
Nina Roumell |
228 |
21% |
|
3 |
Liz Lilly |
308 |
28% |
|
4 |
Write in |
38 |
4% |
|
Total |
1,085 |
100% |
There will be a run-off between Pat Knecht and Liz Lilly.
Who would you like to be the Financial Vice President for 2012-2013 CCSGA?
|
# |
Answer |
Response |
% |
|
1 |
Stanley Sigalov |
546 |
49.1% |
|
2 |
Matt Nadel |
534 |
48.0% |
|
3 |
Write-In |
33 |
3.0% |
|
Total |
1,113 |
100.0% |
There will be a runoff between Stanley Sigalov and Matt Nadel.
Who would you like to be the Student Concerns Vice President for 2012-2013 CCSGA?
# |
Answer |
Response |
% |
|
1 |
Brooks Fleet |
219 |
20% |
|
2 |
Johanna Holbrook |
243 |
22% |
|
3 |
Charis Whitnah |
577 |
53% |
|
4 |
Write in |
48 |
4% |
|
Total |
1,087 |
100% |
Charis Whitnah is the winner.
Who would you like to be the Constitutional Vice President for 2012-2013 CCSGA?
|
# |
Answer |
Response |
% |
|
1 |
Elliot Mamet |
654 |
62% |
|
2 |
Rachel Katzoff |
333 |
32% |
|
3 |
Write in |
67 |
6% |
|
Total |
1,054 |
100% |
Elliot Mamet is the winner.
How come there is no run-off between Matt and Stanley, given that the rules state there must be a 50% majority…
because there were already only two candidates. A run-off would be pointless, as, iirc, writing in is always an option.
There WILL be a runoff now, as decided by the election committee.
No Tim Wheeler?
shocked to see ben endorse today; no doubt where the phoenix votes came from
I agree with the comment above regarding a runoff
Right, because there’s no way anyone would have voted for Phoenix had they not first heard Ben’s endorsement. Come on.
stop talking. thanks.
i don’t know what you’re talking about by ben’s endorsement, and i voted for phoenix. good try though
The only individuals on campus NOT allowed to endorse anyone are those on the Election Committee. Neither Ben Quam nor Jack Regenbogen were on that committee, and they are therefore completely free to promote whomever they choose.
you allow a runoff for a 203 vote gap but not a 12 vote gap? On what grounds?
There will be a runoff.
yeah, got that email. thank god.
Current CCSGA members should not be allowed to endorse candidates (as Ben and Jack did).
Sweet nepotism…
Sorry, but why shouldn’t CCSGA members be allowed to make endorsements? This has always been standard practice. It’s not as if a current CCSGA member’s endorsement is a guarantee of a win.
Not surprising the three people who were endorsed by Ben won their respective elections
Are you serious? It’s a democracy. And it’s not nepotism; they’re not forcing anyone to vote a certain way. Ben and Jack can endorse whomever they want. Chilll, friends. Chill.
It’s not necessarily nepotism, but it’s definitely a dick move. This isn’t a nation of 300 million people, where an endorsement from a president is acceptable; this is a school of 2000, where we should be able to impartially vote without knowing what CCSGA itself wants.
Also, nepotism isn’t forcing people to vote how you want, it’s organizing a succession so the people who are in charge can pick the people they want to succeed, because they are partial to those people for reasons other than “I think they’ll be a good candidate.” I don’t know Ben, Jack, or the three running very well, or if they’re good friends, but in a school this small, I can’t imagine that not being the case.
Just like the candidates all had the opportunity to meet with the clubs to get endorsements, the candidates had the same opportunity to do that with Jack and Ben. They are not on the election commission and can endorse whomever they chose. Also, neither Phil nor Phoenix won out. So chill out.
Apparently I don’t understand the definition of “chill.” Am I shouting (or using internet approximations, such as CAPSLOCK, streeeeetching out my woooords, or too many punctuation marks???)? Am I being completely and 100% irrational? I was simply offering my own opinion of the situation, which differed from yours. How, pray tell, would you like me to chill out, aside from saying something I don’t agree with?
this is bullshit TIM WHEELER 2012
What are the resulting number of votes and percentages for the student trustee candidates?
I don’t think any the candidates won b/c of Ben and Jack’s endorsements.. or any endorsement for that matter.. They were the best candidates, the most articulate at the debate, and ran the best campaigns
Your use of superlatives is a very convincing argument.
Is that a joke? Haas was the most articulate, by miles. And seemed to know what he was talking about. Can’t say the same for any of the others.
It is absurd that the Student Trustee results are being withheld… I thought the current CCSGA promised to prevent this sort of secrecy.. Students have the right to know who won, and if the Board does not choose that candidate we have the right to know why!
Withholding the results was a decision made by the board of Trustees, not by CCSGA. It was not within CCSGA’s power to release the results.
NEPOTISM. BEN & JACK… NEPOTISM
Well, I wouldn’t say they were the best candidates at the debate. Phil promised things to the student body that he has no influence on. Colby didn’t even know the chairs name. Also, manipulation within this election was clearly very easy. One of the election committee member even said so. Originally it was said that no CCSGA member was able to endorse.
Being part of the election commission, it was never stated that CCSGA members could not endorse other candidates. The only people forbidden to do so are those who reside on the election commission.
I would like to dispel some of this slander. I am indeed good friends with Jack, but did he not run our campaign in any way. He was not even on campus during the first week, and in general he has his own things to worry about. He was available for consultation and that is the extent of it. Secondly, anybody not on the election committee has the right to publicly endorse whomever they please. Don’t you think any politician would work hard to get someone he or she is ideologically aligned with elected? This should be a forum dedicated to constructive criticism and questioning. I would ask that the proctor remove these slanderous remarks and suggest that upset parties file a formal complaint if they suspect any wrong-doing. Negative campaigning is strictly prohibited and this is still election season.
Quite frankly Pat, expressing opinions about an election that doesn’t seem very legitimate (to some of us is not slander). Slander is “The action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation”. I don’t believe anyone is trying to destroy your reputation or any of the other candidates’ in question.
We are speaking against an unfair system that allows CCSGA members to sway elections to forward their own political preferences.
If we look only at facts we can see the following things:
1. CCSGA members are people in a position of power.
2. CCSGA members have been in office for 6 blocks, and the CC population thinks positively of them.
3. Nepotism is defined as “The practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives or friends”.
4.CCSGA members publicly endorsed candidates (who are their friends, as they would publicly accept and as you have publicly stated) on the day of the election.
5. Those candidates had favorable results in the election.
If we look at facts 1-4, it is by simple definition that, even though CCSGA bylaws don’t prohibit them from endorsing people, they did so. They were aware that they might have an influence on voters (otherwise why do it, right?).
In my opinion (and I am not claiming this to be a fact) that sounds a lot like Nepotism.
If we look at fact number 5, it just makes some of us question how much current CCSGA members believe in a fair, democratic system. As someone commented before, we are not a country the size of the US. We are a small school where the opinion of the current student government matters. They should not, regardless of whether they are in the election commission or not, make any comments about the election process.
Let me express my argument in a similar fashion as above:
1. CCSGA as a whole is calling for elections.
2. The elections are Student Government elections (Also known as Colorado College Student Government elections, CCSGA elections for short)
3. Elected members will serve in the positions that, in the spirit of democracy and alternation of power, the current CCSGA members are passing down to democratically elected candidates.
Even if the rules do not prohibit them from doing so, using their position to favor a candidate, is a move that completely disregards the principles of fair elections. If the current CCSGA members that endorsed candidates didn’t believe that they could make a difference, they wouldn’t have endorsed anyone in the first place (not publicly, not on the day of the election).
This is why, Pat, people are mad. It is not because you couldn’t have achieved the same result without the endorsement of CCSGA members. It is because we won’t ever know and the damage to the hard work of the other campaigners is done.
I want to conclude by reminding you that “Negative campaigning is strictly prohibited” for people running for CCSGA who decided to abide by those rules. It is not by any means prohibited for anyone else, since we didn’t verbally, in written form, or otherwise, choose to abide by such rules. Thus they can only be found in the application for CCSGA that you filled out when you decided to run.
Not that anything that has been said here constitutes, in any shape or form, negative campaigning or slander.
Best,
Jorge Rivera
I agree whole heartedly with Jorge, and look forward to a brilliant catalyst article.
- Ryan Haas
Oh it shall come
It has yet to be mentioned that most of the other candidates actively sought out endorsements from members of CCSGA.. (and even seemingly fabricated some endorsements).. Would this conversation be happening if Nathan, Luigi or Ryan had gotten the tip of the hat? I think not.. This seems like a bit of a temper tantrum
People are upset because their man didn’t get the gold.. not because the system is flawed
Wait, this is interesting….Fabricated? Say more.
I want to remind this anonymous person that I was not running for anything. I still think it is wrong. No one should have been endorsed by the president and vice president.
By anyone else, sure why not, but not by these two people while holding positions of power.
I’m thrilled that a conversation over transparency and elections has evolved here, and I commend Pat, Jorge and others for adding to that conversation in their own names rather than posting anonymously.
To those who post comments that are purely hateful and ad hominem attacks: they will be deleted. Go waste someone else’s time. Lets keep this conversation constructive.
I support Phoenix and Pat because I believe they are the best candidates for the job. As has been noted, anyone not on the election commission, like myself, can support a candidate. This is a standard practice for any democratic system, and I don’t think CC being a small campus changes anything. We should hold ourselves at student government to the highest standards of democracy and professionalism.
Also, I would never pretend that my support could sway a campus election. CC students will make up their own minds and vote however they want, that’s democracy.
Criticism, questions, catalyst articles and dialogue are all things that CCSGA wants. I hope a discussion continues, and I welcome anyone who wants to chat in person.
Ben,
Here is my full take. It is separate from my original upset, which I still uphold. I represent many voices when I relay the following:
Since the beginning of this year, it has been your duty to represent the CC Student Body at all times. It has also been your job to represent CCSGA at all times. You took it above and beyond by becoming the image of CCSGA. People associate CCSGA with your name. You evolved and empowered the job of Student Body President in visionary ways.
However, when you are on the job, working that image 24/7, it is INAPPROPRIATE for you to simultaneously endorse ANY candidate as Ben Quam, or furthermore, as CCSGA President (as has been noted on Pat’s endorsement flyers).
Out of respect for the elections, fairness, and equality, it has long been the tradition that graduating members of the Executive Council serve on the election commission. It saddens me that both you and Jack did not uphold those values in the face of electing a successor.
Looking back, it was wrong of me to seek out your endorsement.
A considerable portion of the student body, YOUR student body, and CCSGA have cried out in upset at your choice to endorse candidates. Please do not endorse ANY CANDIDATE tomorrow out of respect for the elections alone. Please consider the fact that your public opinion will not accurately REPRESENT the student body’s. It is your job to REPRESENT the CC Student Body and CCSGA at all times. When you endorse, you fail to perform your duties truthfully.
That said, I think, until Pat’s door flyers, the way you went about endorsing was respectable, sincere, and minimal. I respect endorsing as a personal liberty. However, I see the door flyers as public action that crossed the line.
Respectfully,
Ryan Haas
wrote that last night, so a couple of those sentences are invalid.
oh really? so after you lost you feel bad for seeking an endorsement from ben? how convenient.
no one is talking…
I believe Pat, Phil, and Phoenix’s platforms were the most in line with Pat and Ben’s current ideas. It’s hard for me to see an endorsement not happen there.
Jack you mean ?
Congratulations Nathan for having run the cleanest campaign among the Presidents. Well done!
i wasn’t aware he ran a campaign
One of the things that has been said over and over here is that Ben and Jack specifically (and much of the rest of CCSGA) are not on the election commission, and thus can endorse whomever they please.
So officially, that’s all well and good. But what I want to know is why is that the case? I agree with Jorge and the anon commenter who said that this differs from a large country situation. I want to be able to vote for who I believe will be the right candidate, and knowing what CCSGA wants–because, even if Ben and Jack are endorsing the candidates under their own names, it’s different than if some random student was saying, “I want so-and-so to win!”–gets in the way of that. Do I think the three candidates who ran could have won on their own volition? Absolutely. But I feel like the support of CCSGA president gives them leave to run a sloppier campaign.
tl;dr, basically, I want to know why it’s okay in the rules for CCSGA members not in the election commission to endorse whomever they want. Endorsements from student government for new student government candidates are undoubtedly going to be taken more seriously than endorsements from other clubs–that’s basic logic. It doesn’t seem fair.
Ben,
I agree with you – you have every right to endorse whomever you please. You are not at fault, because you abided by the rules (or rather, did not break them) when you decided to endorse certain candidates. As has been stressed on throughout this discussion, only members of the election commission were not allowed to endorse anyone. This sounds sensible, given that they are directly involved with the election, and could thus be suspect of manipulation. You, however, are not directly involved, and perhaps this is why the current student government allows for you to endorse the candidates of your choice. The current election, though seemingly dirty, stands as perfectly legitimate according to the rules of the current government.
I disagree with you, however, on your comment that, despite this being a small school and not a big country, the democratic system we mimic should not be altered. I am sure you, being a member of the CCSGA, want what is best for the community, and certainly you must strive to establish a form of polity that best suits the community. I doubt anyone (or if so, only a few) would argue that democracy would be the most suitable form of government for us, yet that does not imply that we must simply absorb all democratic standard practices, especially if the students feel that such standards are not suited to such a small community. The legality of our current predicament is not in question, but the morality of it is. We must create our own standards with the consent of the majority of the students. This is an important discussion, one in which students are expression their opinions, and one the CCSGA should pay close attention to when considering any alterations to their already established rules and regulations. This is, after all, a democracy. You should let the people decided on whether what has happened is fair or not – and if they feel it is unfair, they must have the power to make changes for the future.
Why are people getting so up in arms about whether or not it’s okay for current CCSGA members to endorse people running for spots for next year? It DOESN’T matter.
Why DOESN’T it matter?