Next week, students will elect another round of senators to represent them in ASUCD. Voting starts Feb. 16 at 8 a.m. and ends Feb. 18 at 8 a.m. Results will be announced at noon that Friday.
Voters will rank candidates in order of preference through ASUCD’s choice voting system. If a student’s first-choice candidate either wins with extra votes or fails to meet a minimum vote standard, that vote goes toward the voter’s next choice candidate.
This quarter’s group of candidates is remarkably well-qualified, making the decision of whom to vote for exceptionally difficult. The Aggie editorial board interviewed all 13 candidates and our endorsements reflect whom we feel will be most effective.
No. 1 – Eli Yani: Yani has an unbeatable knowledge of the $10.7 million ASUCD budget. Yani served as the 2009-2010 controller, responsible for drafting and implementing the budget and acting as the primary financial advisor to the ASUCD president and senate.
Even though his platforms aren’t exactly serious – moving waffle makers from the dining halls to the CoHo and weeding out communists from ASUCD – he is by far the most ASUCD savvy candidate. Already familiar with ASUCD’s limitations, he will be a voice of fiscal responsibility on the senate table.
No. 2 – Ryan Meyerhoff: While Meyerhoff has never sat on the senate table, he has held multiple positions specializing in the ASUCD bylaws. He is the ASUCD webmaster, former chair of the Elections Committee, former senior associate justice with the ASUCD Court and a current student representative with the Academic Senate.
Despite his platform to start free parking on campus one hour earlier – a similar goal that many have tried and failed – Meyerhoff has solid budget-cutting ideas and will bring institutional knowledge and a centrist perspective to the table.
No. 3 – Miguel Espinoza: Espinoza is familiar enough with ASUCD to be effective while still being new enough to bring a fresh perspective. Espinoza is a commissioner on the Gender and Sexuality Commission and a co-chair with the Queer Student Union. His work with the Student Recruitment and Retention Center, Cross Cultural Center and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Resource Center has given him leadership skills and knowledge of student needs.
His platform to pay for transportation for prospective students to visit UC Davis seems unrealistic, but it shows that his heart is in the right place.
No. 4 – Amy Martin: Even though Martin is only a sophomore, she is already an accomplished member of ASUCD. She sits on the senate table as the chair of the Internal Affairs Commission and is chief of staff to the controller. Therefore, she is familiar with both the executive and legislative sides of the association and is well prepared to serve as senator. Her platform goals, such as expanding composting to the Silo and putting Classical Notes online, are sound and doable.
Martin said she wants to represent the Greek community on the table. While there is no problem with being part of a sorority, senate already has a share of Greek perspectives.
No. 5 – Brendan Repicky: With a year of service on the External Affairs Commission under his belt, Repicky understands the structure of ASUCD. He wants to do big things for the campus and profoundly impact all UC Davis students.
Although his platform goals, such as creating a textbook scholarship and more flexible parking, seem outside a senator’s realm of influence, Repicky obviously knows what the average student wants.
No. 6 – Caitlin Alday: As chair of the Gender and Sexuality Commission, Alday has worked with senators, various commissions and outside groups. She has proven her ability to collaborate and be a voice for underrepresented communities. She’ll help the association in its efforts to better represent all groups on campus.
While her goal to create more accessible counseling and major advising lacks a concrete plan, it shows that Alday wants to make changes that will impact all students on campus.
See the candidates debate Wednesday at the ASUCD Coffee House at noon, and vote online at elections.ucdavis.edu.
Matt, all I can say is I respect sincerity in candidates more.
Also, I think your comment is hilarious and I revel in how much it is probably causing Alison rage right now.
Also, Alison this might help.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/woman
Despite the sound, there’s no y.
However, there is a y in “Why so sserious?”
Andre, one can argue that those who run on recycled platforms that are never accomplished are the real jokes.
Few things:
@ Alison: I agree they should have waited until after the debate; I wish the Aggie considered debates more seriously in endorsements because I think it’s a good predictor of how people will comport on the table, but all of this is only true if elections committee actually runs a thoughtful debate. Nonetheless, the Aggie is independent and can do whatever the f it wants.
@ Matt: I don’t think the Aggie should be running a person who is running as a joke or who abandoned elections committee the week before an elections season as people who are going to represent people responsibly.
@ Richard: see @ Alison. Also, I’m glad people are using the forum because they definitely don’t get used enough! Also, I hope very much that you are doing well wherever you are.
@Procter: dude, you hella graduated! What’s wrong with your life? Also, if I’m so dumb why was I endorsed by the Aggie. Haha… Don’t answer that. That endorsement doesn’t mean anything to me now that , just a year later, the Aggie’s number 1 & 2 endorsements are for JOKE candidates.
Also, @ Matt, don’t call me a bro, I’m a fierce womyn warrior! Also, my debate was important because I OWNED it, just like I OWN that senate table.
And if you can’t tell, I think these comments are ridiculous too.
When 3 people have double posted comments there is probably a technical issue somewhere; quick, where’s Alex Park?
@Ali Tanner: The Aggie is a student run newspaper larger than many community newspapers. I’m sure the dozens of students that run it, including the carefully selected management, decided to run this article before the debate for no reason at all. Furthermore they are probably kicking themselves (or will once they are done reeling from the hat trick of “fake fake fakeness”) for not consulting you before making said decision. What will they do now that they’ve lost your respect?
Also the debates are artificial and in no way represent what the senate will be like or how senators will perform in meetings that nobody will come to. Whereas the one on one meetings the candidates have with the Aggie are often informative of who wants to actually do something and who is being forced into it by whatever student organization they’re a part of.
Moreover, let’s not forget that it was ASUCD who wanted The Aggie to be a part of the debates in the first place to lend them an air of any legitimacy whatsover as well as coverage and free publicity.
All this by way of saying: I’m glad there’s a forum for you to vent, but I think your comment actually lowered the IQ of anyone who bothered to read it.
in addition to the fact that*
Translation: The Aggie didn’t endorse my favorites. I’m mad bro.
Though unconventional to endorse before the debates, the debate isn’t terribly necessary for the Aggie to make a judgment, given that candidate platforms and statements are available (and most of these tend to be constant across the years, let’s be honest here) in addition to the Aggie interviews all the candidates.
Pardon: why the f would the Aggie endorse before the debate? What then is the purpose of the debate??? Like seriously, this is just completely ridiculous. Whatever respect I had for Aggie involvement in the elections was lost after this fake fake fakeness. You better not be sponsoring/holding the debate because your presence is invalidated.