ASUO election results will be posted at five p.m. I’ll update this post when I get them.

Apparently all the confusion has been sorted out, but not before elections board chair Aaron Tuttle received a high volume of obscene phone calls and emails. I’m sure it had nothing to do with certain candidates posting his cell number on Facebook last night. Definitely not. Stay classy, guys.

***

Okay, here’s the results. Emma Kallaway and Getachew Kassa won the executive ticket by a vote of 2031-1368. The Oregon Action Team lost bad, taking only one contested Senate seat and a couple of uncontested. They won a few positions on the SRC advisory committee and EMU board as well.

Finding that the elections board does not, in fact, have the power to unilaterally dismiss candidates or enforce state laws or university conduct codes (who would have thought?), the ASUO Constitution Court has summarily reversed the boards’ decision to remove the Oregon Action Team from the ballot and dismissed the grievance filed against it by David Griffin. From the ruling:

Indeed, it is neither within the its [sic] jurisdiction, nor the intended function of this Court, nor any other body within the ASUO, to hear, review, or otherwise consider any allegation of violations under Oregon law, or the Student Conduct Code. Should a member of this Association be arrested, held, charged, tried, found, convicted, or similarly disposed under Oregon law or the Conduct Code, resulting from actions of a type alleged here, or any other related action or activities, then the Court may consider such evidence in its own adjudication.

Without such a process duly undertaken by the proper authorities on the respective matters, the Court does not consider any statements that pass judgment as to the illegality of any alleged actions.

Upon hearing the court’s ruling, elections board chair Aaron Tuttle reportedly roared mightily, flipped a nearby table and exclaimed, “I AM THE LAW!” Okay, that’s not true.

The silver lining behind all of this is that we are actually getting somewhere close to clearly defining the role of the elections board, the Con Court, etc.

Finally, we can get back to the business of electing people based on cronyism and colorful t-shirts – y’know, the way a representative republic is supposed to work.

Tomchak is getting all the news over at the ODE blogs, then again, Tuttle is force-feeding him information.

Anyway.

According to a post, the UO Administration told the IT guys not to remove Haley and Ted from the online ballot for the elections.

So, they’re still on the ballot?

—

In other news, Tuttle provided Tomchak with the “evidence” that supports Haley’s alleged involvement in the parties, stickers, and bribery alcohol. He also got the letter to Tuttle about the parties, from someone…

Bloom and Haley’s Exchange

The Letter – (names removed because people feared for the writer’s safety…what is he going to get assassinated?)

More updates as they come.

We’re entering uncharted territory here, folks. Beyond thunderdome, if you will. The Oregon Action Team exec ticket has been kicked off the ballot, with the rest of its slate also under the axe. The OAT is threatening legal action. ASUO Exec Sam Dotters-Katz has issued a statement calling the election board’s ruling “one of the most reprehensible and shameful acts I have witnessed at the ASUO,” although he said he would not try to intervene.

All in all, it’s a complete disaster. Either the OAT is guilty of bribing volunteers with alcohol, or their opponents sandbagged them with false accusations. It’s a lose-lose situation for the student body either way.

This is why the Oregon Commentator did not endorse any of the executive tickets. I know that both campaigns have been doing these shady things all along. The problem is I don’t know which one to distrust more.

For example, the following is from the ODE article on yesterday’s exec debates:

“I had the pleasure of going to a conference funded by student fees,” Haley said. She said she used the conference as an opportunity to lobby legislators on behalf of students, but that, “Every morning at 6 a.m., Emma was meeting with two people from the ASUO planning her campaign.”

Kallaway then snapped back, “At six in the morning, I’m pretty sure that you were sleeping and I was being more educated about the ASUO.”

After the debate, Kallaway said she had been meeting with ASUO alumni who did not want to be identified. She said it was “a privilege to see old perspectives” on a variety of issues, and the way she spent her time in Washington D.C. indicated her ability to get the maximum use out of available resources.

Do you know what they’re talking about? It’s called Fight Club. The progressive bloc in the ASUO have their own Mystic Society of No Homers to organize their campaigns and get “the right people” in office. Most everybody around the ASUO knows about it, but it’s hard to get anyone on the record because … well, you know the first rule of fight club.

But this is the kind of atmosphere that pervades the entire ASUO on both sides of the spectrum; the conservatives have their little Karl Roves as well. It’s all insider politics, backroom deals and smoke and mirrors, and it’s disgusting.

Most people expected the Commentator to support the OAT. We did last year, and I don’t regret that. But besides opposing OSPIRG and paying lip-service to lowering the I-fee, it’s hard to see how this year’s Oregon Action Team slate qualifies as particularly conservative. As the ODE noted, their idea to increase football tickets is unrealistic, especially in an economic crunch. The rest of their platform consists of maintaining and/or expanding services. How this will lower the I-fee is beyond me. The OAT seemed more concerned with fostering an image and winning seats than promoting fiscal responsibility.

So there you have it: Stuck with the choice of the “ASUO tested, Fight Club approved” candidates or a faux-conservative slate full of mostly lackluster people and ideas, we chose neither. (Well, actually we chose “Deez Nuts.”) No one on the Commentator staff was interested in endorsing any of the exec tickets. The students of the University of Oregon deserve an open and transparent government, not a bunch of self-serving twits.

I don’t give the benefit of the doubt to any ruling coming from the elections board, and their ruling once again seems completely arbitrary and nonsensical. However, I have trouble being outraged because, frankly, we were doomed from the start.

The cherry on top of all this is 80 percent of students could care less.

(Oh, P.S. Emma and Getachew voiced conditional support for bringing OSPIRG back next year, so if Michelle and Ted are completely off the ballot, you can expect to see those money-grubbing clowns again come budget season.)

Today’s ASUO elections grievance count is five for a total of five so far this election season. Coincidentally, voting in the general elections started today.

After a relatively peaceful first week, we have now entered the “FUBAR phase” of elections. From my understanding, most of the grievances were against the Oregon Action Team, but at least one was filed by the OAT concerning this banner. I’ll see if I can rustle up the documents tomorrow.

By the way, I set the official Commentator over/under for grievances at seven. Anyone want to place some bets?

After last year’s ASUO election that featured seventeen grievances and a heated presidential debate, I was pumped for this years annual ASUO shitshow. Alas, the grievance count still remains at an all time low and the debates were anything but entertaining.

The thunder that sparked the debates last year is gone and this debate seemed nothing more than a elongated question and answer session. Half the time the candidates answered questions sitting down, the other half was candidates talking about outreach.

There were two main issues touched upon during the debates. Campaign spending seemed to dominate most of the debates as the first topic questioned the  Oregon Action Team’s morality due to campaign funding. The second biggest issue was whether or not student tickets to football games are more important than funding late night LTD transit to students in the Kinsrow Area.

Sure, over spending on campaign funding is an issue in the current economic climate, but to attack a persons morality on campaign funding is ludicrous. True Blue stuck to one of their main campaign points during the debate stating several times that there campaign budget is $2009 (because it’s the current year, get it? nudge,nudge).

Breakdown of the campaigns during the debates.

Oregon Action Team

Michelle Haley handled questions about the campaign spending with honesty and used clearly explained reasons for her campaign budget, while other candidates just pointed out that they spent more on the slate so far. Ted Sebastian the VP candidate offered up the idea of having a bar on campus ( we will hold you to that if you win).

Students First

Carina Miller talks really fast. I mean really fast. I do not understand what their platform is yet. Gower seemed to be the real talking head during the debates, but came off more pissy than anything else. The guy knows what he is talking but acts like  a stuck up thirteen year old girl when he has the mic.

True Blue

Nick Schultz is really good about public speaking, honestly. But I am getting really tired of hearing about their spending cap for campaign finances. These two were a real bitch to film (shameless plug warning. New Oregon Commentator News with Debate Coverage to be posted in the next week) as Nick Schultz is a solid sixteen inches taller than Lidi Soto. Also Soto seems to get a bad case of the giggles when talking in public.

Emma and Getachew

Boring.

iGov people

These guys don’t stand a chance in the election, but made for the most interesting duo during the debates. Their platform is seriously flawed though. How can they expect a student body in which less than 20% vote on ASUO be responsible enough to allocate $11,000,000 through Duckweb? Props for the effort though.

Conclusion

When are we going to get past campaign finance issues and on to the real issues? We want fire, we want grievances, we want something newsworthy to come out of these elections. Also last year at the elections there was a vast amount of soda and those huge pizzas from pizza pipeline, this year there was carrots, broccoli and ranch dip for snacks. Fucking recession.

The ASUO primary election results were just announced down in the ASUO office. With my ultra cool media privileges, I got to sit and watch the votes being counted while the candidate mob crowded by the window like cows at a feeding trough. Anyways …

Emma Kallaway and Getachew Kassa (team red) and Michelle Haley and Ted Sebastian (Oregon Action Team) moved on to the general elections. You can see the all the results here.

The elections aren’t about the fashion choices of the candidates but the t-shirts for the various campaigns this year suck, and they suck hard.

True Blue – Actually has the cleanest of the shirts. They’re okay. [Not an endorsement of the team. I’m just saying that their shirts aren’t atrocious.]

OAT – Well, if day-glo lime-green and pink is the choice that suits you, okay,  but I don’t want to look like an irradiated watermelon.

The Red Team – I’m not sure who they are but I got accosted by someone in a red t-shirt last week with what looked like Communist propaganda imagery on it. Seriously, check these shirts out if you see one of their reps on campus. It’s very Mao of them.

iGov – Apple is wrapping its claws even tighter around college-age Americans with their new student government team. iGov, with crap indie music as well. Apparently, they don’t believe in shirts or color.

Students First – I think they’re the purple team in this race but I’ve seen a couple different colors on their shirts. In principle, their silhouette idea is good but in action it looks terrible. Mostly, I’m not sure what I’m looking at even though I know that I’m supposed to see the ASUO office. The trashcan silhouette is a nice touch though.

Side-note: In a non-T-shirt related note, Deborah Bloom has apparently decided that she is above last names and is running for the Senate Journalism Seat under the singularity, Deborah. This according to the ASUO Voter’s Guide.

Last night there was a Q&A session with the ASUO executive candidates held in Lillis 282. Unfortunately, the only people who attended were candidates from the various slates and a couple of reporters. Oddly, it was a moderated session, and audience members were not allowed to ask questions.

Audience members were, however, given the opportunity to answer questions about how they felt about student government via weird clicking devices. (Of course, this resulted in about ten minutes of figuring out how to use said clicking devices, replacing dead clicking devices, etc.) In short, it was like a microcosm of student government – non-existent student involvement, rampant technical errors, lots of giggling.

There were, however, some bright spots in the meeting. All of the candidates expressed a desire to overhaul the horrific ASUO website and improve access and transparency in general.

Michelle Haley and Ted Sebastian, the Oregon Action Team candidates, talked about renovating the EMU and the Oregon 2020 plan.

Carina Miller and Nick Gower from the Students First campaign mentioned setting up student advisory councils in each department. (The AAA and PPPM departments already have such councils, which act like intermediary’s between the students and their department.)

Other good moments included exec candidates Ryan McCarrel and Ian Baldwin, whom many have dubbed the Ron Paul of the ASUO elections, chiding the other candidates for turning the elections into “political theater.”

There will be more information on the slates’ specific platfoms soon. I’ve finished interviewing all of the exec candidates, and I’ll put up the transcripts on the blog. (They will also be appearing in the elections issue, which is going off to the printer on Sunday, so be on the lookout!)

Well, today marks the end of week one of the ASUO elections circus. And we do mean circus. For example, you might have noticed the True Blue slate’s concert and juggling extravaganza on Wednesday.

Not to be outdone, the Oregon Action Team slate somehow got the duck mascot to appear in an OAT shirt:

Of course, the athletic department is none too happy about this. (Nor are the other slates, I imagine.) You can see pictures from both these events on our Flickr feed. (Thanks to photographer Ross Coyle for the great work.)

Also, Michelle Haley, ASUO Exec candidate for the Oregon Action Team slate (and Commentator contributor) informed me that the the elections board has forbidden the OAT from distributing packs of ramen noodles emblazoned with the OAT logo, saying it’s bribery.

Which is funny because the posters that the OAT are allowed to give away cost more to print than a pack of ramen. Of course, there’s still a long ways to go before elections get as absurd as last year.

Grievance count remains at zero, but the duck mascot fiasco is sure to reel in one or two. I’m officially setting the over/under at seven. Whoever gets closest wins a Sudsy t-shirt.

Today’s ODE has a Q&A session with Aaron Tuttle, ASUO elections coordinator. As I mentioned yesterday, one of the big non-issues of the election is spending limits – money, after all, being the root of all evil. Here’s Tuttle talking about changes to elections rules brought on by the almighty dollar (emphasis added):

We really just want to limit bribery, and that aspect of things. We solved that. These are issues … across the board for ASUO and elections in previous years. Another rule would be the spending cap, which we’ve been focusing a lot on. (Spending) went from $2,000 to $10,000 in the period of a year, and that’s just ridiculous. We really wanted to limit that because it’s a student election. You’re not running for a state office; you’re not running for a federal office. You’re here to represent students. And that image of you spending a lot of money, what does that say to people? You’re going to be their voice, basically. We really feel that, the financial aspect, leads to a lot of other issues. You’ve got to limit that. But the Oregon State Constitution states “no spending limits.” … It limits free speech, which is what the Oregon State Supreme Court, or whatever it is, says. So we kind of had to brush that off and head toward voluntary and see what candidates might be willing to do. […] Historically speaking, there’s obviously a huge correlation between the amount spent and the people who win, so it puts us in a bit of a pickle to figure out what they’re going to do. It’s a tough situation for everyone. Other schools in the state have spending caps and they just haven’t had to deal with the legality of it. It’s “a waiting for it to happen” kind of thing. Other schools comparable to our size … have campaigns of about $1,500.

Legality, Constitution, Supreme Court, whatever. But seriously, the ability to spend your money as you see fit is freedom of speech. People only whine about “disproportionate influence” and “concentration of power” when it comes to things they disagree with (e.g. You never hear Democrats complain about George Soros’ vast wealth and power).

Tuttle also talked about how this year’s ASUO elections are shaping up to be a kinder, gentler affair. Speaking of which, the grievance count remains at zero. Anyone want to start a pool for when the first one will be filed?

Yes, today marks the beginning of the most wonderful/awful time of the year: ASUO election season. This year there are a record 83 candidates running for various positions in the Associated Students of the University of Oregon, including five candidates for ASUO executive president (along with their respective VP’s).

Three major slates have also formed: the Oregon Action Team, True Blue and Students First. Don’t worry about getting them confused. As per tradition, the slates are color-coded for your convenience; OAT = green, Students First = purple, and True Blue = (take a guess).

With so many candidates and slates, this year’s election is sure to be, at the very least, enormously entertaining. For example, the ODE already ran an article on the spending arms race between the slates. (I wonder how much the True Blue campaign dropped on its fancy-pants website?)

I will be blogging more about the candidates, slates and their platforms. In fact, the Commentator will be extensively covering the elections, so check back here often for updates or follow us on Twitter.

Speaking of which, we are officially starting Grievance Watch 2009. Today’s grievance count is: 0

With the inauguration of Barack Obama only days away and and the Eugene Weekly trumpeting that “Our Long National Nightmare is Over“, I found today’s column by Peter Beinart in the Washington Post both refreshing and instructive. In the context of a plea for Democrats to finally recognize the success of the “Surge” in Iraq,  Beinart cautions liberals and progressives, especially young ones, the likes of which one frequently encounters around the University, against excessive hubris:

Because Bush has been such an unusually bad president, an entire generation of Democrats now takes it for granted that on the big questions, the right is always wrong. Older liberals remember the Persian Gulf War, which most congressional Democrats opposed and most congressional Republicans supported — and the Republicans were proven right. They also remember the welfare reform debate of the mid-1990s, when prominent liberals predicted disaster, and disaster didn’t happen.

Younger liberals, by contrast, have had no such chastening experiences. Watching the Bush administration flit from disaster to disaster, they have grown increasingly dismissive of conservatives in the process. They consume partisan media, where Republican malevolence is taken for granted. They laugh along with the “Colbert Report,” the whole premise of which is that conservatives are bombastic, chauvinistic and dumb. They have never had the ideologically humbling experience of watching the people whose politics they loathe be proven right.

In this way, they are a little like the Bushies themselves….

Come Tuesday, there’s likely to be a lot of celebration and triumphalism among Democrats and other liberals here in Eugene and indeed nationwide. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’d do them well, though, to keep in mind that Peter Beinart isn’t really talking about the “Surge” at all. He’s warning against the temptation to believe that, after eight years of the “national nightmare,” the return of the Democratic party to the Oval Office has vindicated the “progressive” worldview as being inherently superior to competing ideas.

The idea that the Republican party has become a “permanant minority” or little more than a “regional” Southern party might be comforting to some, but it’s more than a little reminiscent of Karl Rove’s “permanent majority” rhetoric. Conceiving of conservative thinking as a whole — from the Republicans to the Constitution Party, Libertarians, and others — as wholly discredited and fundamentally unserious (as Beinart argues the Bush Administration treated its critics) or simply viewing them as an undifferentiated mass of Bible-thumping racists might feel good on a visceral level, but it’s not really grounded in reality and it certainly isn’t good long-term thinking.

Indeed, anyone who thought Barack Obama was going to work that way has already tasted disappointment. Some have already begun to jokingly refer to the Obama Administration as the “third Bush term“. While such quips are obviously tongue-in-cheek, they do reflect “progressive” disappointment that Obama himself hasn’t shown much interest in waging an ideological crusade against Republicans and conservatives in Washington.

“Being proven right too many times is dangerous,” Beinart concludes. “It breeds intellectual arrogance and complacency.”

If Democrats and “progressives” follow the same path along which the Republican Party has trudged since 2000 (Or 1994. Or 1981.), toward arrogance and complacency, they might find themselves hunkering down and bracing for the next “national nightmare” in 2012. After all, what happened in November 2008 wasn’t a revolution. It was just a Presidential election. And these things happen.

Briefly came across this on yahoo news.

The gist of the article is that President-elect Barack Obama is alienating himself from the liberals that supported him with such stances as:

-Letting the tax cuts of people who make $250,000+ expire in 2010

-A “responsible drawdown” from Iraq

-Appointing Hillary Clinton, keeping Robert Gates, and having a centrist cabinet

-Not taxing the windfall profits of oil companies

To sum up this article:

Now it’s Obama’s Cabinet moves that are drawing the most fire. It’s not just that he’s picked Clinton and Gates. It’s that liberal Democrats say they’re hard-pressed to find one of their own on Obama’s team so far – particularly on the economic side, where people like Tim Geithner and Lawrence Summers are hardly viewed as pro-labor.

Apparently, what they want is a cabinet made entirely of Nanci Pelosi.

With ACORN making sure Mickey Mouse isn’t denied his right to vote and dead goldfish getting voter registration cards, maybe it’s time to stop maintaining that requiring ID to vote isn’t a villainous racist tactic designed to suppress the minority vote by hearkening back to the days of Jim Crow?

Doubly so, in fact, since many of the voter ID laws in question are at this point several years old — more than enough time by any standard to go out and get some legitimate form of identification.

For their part, Obama supporters maintain that there’s nothing to worry about because vote fraud is extraordinarily rare and voter-registration fraud isn’t really a big deal anyways — an interesting about-face from the days when Diebold was stealing elections.*

* Diebold is, in fact, horrible.