49 F
Davis

Davis, California

Tuesday, November 30, 2021

Hail to the Chief

After attending the maelstrom of logically fallacious arguments that was last Thursday’s ASUCD Senate meeting, I’m going to treat everyone to a segment I like to callReally?!? With Richard.

Really, people? An aspect of technology behind the voting website stops working for three-and-a-half hours and this makes for anunfairelection? If nobody could vote for any candidate for the same period of time, all the candidates were subject to the same conditions. Voters who were unable to vote during that time frame had an additional three-and-a-half hours the next morning.

The Elections Committee didn’t do enough to tell voters about the extension? Really? As soon as the problem was discovered, it was addressed. The Elections Committee posted a note on the elections website saying that it was not working and that people should try again later. They later posted an update with the extended election times. They e-mailed people, Facebooked people, talked to people. They asked the University Registrar to send out an e-mail to all students; that the request was denied by the postmaster because there was no realistic way to e-mail over 23,000 people in less than 10 hours isn’t their fault.

And is one of your complaints really that the results of the election were leaked halfway through the election? Really? This is a huge problem? In national elections watching the results in real-time hasn’t been cause for an election controversy. If anything, the leaked results gave candidates who were behind in the votes an advantage because they knew they had to close a gap. Moreover, if everyone is subject to the same conditions, are they really unfair? (No.)

Are you really using the fact that a lot of people showed up to the senate meeting as a reason to ask for a re-election? UC Davis has an undergraduate population of 23,499 people. Thinking that the guests at Thursday’s ASUCD Senate meeting are an accurate representation of all voters on campus is silly. Arguing for any change based on meeting attendance is preposterous.

Really, that people are upset with something isn’t necessarily a reason for action either. That these potential voters didn’t vote is unfortunate; that their schedules didn’t jive with the extension is also unfortunate. But those reasons don’t mean that the election was unfair.

Another argument raised at the meeting was that the voting extension was unfair because, as I just mentioned, it didn’t work with people’s schedules. Really? That’s a valid reason to re-do the entire election? It takes less than 5 minutes to vote. I can count the number of valid excuses for being unable to find 5 minutes of free time in 48 hours on my fingers and they mostly involve outer space, a gulag or Scarlett Johansson.

For those who were offended by the idea that it would be inconvenient to have a re-election, is that really offensive? The candidates would have to re-campaign, which means devoting even more time from their personal schedules to doing in the space of maybe a week or two weeks what they did over an entire quarter. Doing that again means spending money again (spoilers: they have to get new money). The elections committee would have to set up new debates. There would have to be an actual re-election. Looking at the potential implications of having a re-election and then looking at the ASUCD Constitution and bylaws makes my head spin.

And really, when ASUCD Senator Kevin Massoudi points all this out to you, notes how he can’t afford to go another week on two hours of sleep and how he can’t afford to campaign again, you’re just going to ignore him? Really? (And, contrary to what Senator Mo Torres would have you believe, it is not the responsibility of candidates to campaign; they don’t have any responsibilities until they get elected.)

If you were a candidate in the election and you mentioned how important it was not to raise student fees (i.e. all candidates), can you really ask for a costly re-election?

Really, you don’t think having a re-election woulddisenfranchisesome of the 6,142 people that voted two weeks ago?

Really, nobody wanted to comment on the fact that President Ivan Carillo encouraged the senate table to completely disregard the constitution and bylaws? Really? The President did this?

Really, it was important enough for you to vote Thursday night, but not Friday morning?

And really, if we’re being honest, implying that senators are racist in a public forum when there is no proof whatsoever to that effect is absolutely indefensible, I mean really.

 

Give RICHARD PROCTER your thoughts on the issue at rhprocter@ucdavis.edu.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here