Next week, in Kaysurk

A Resolution In Opposition to the Second Response Ordinance Amendments: Read title. This is to oppose a change in that booze party thingamabober to make a 180-day probation period, rather than a 60-day one. In an excellent display of the effectiveness of the ASUC in expressing opinions, it's been pretty much accomplished through Igor and co.

A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF REDUCING IMPEDIMENTS TO ONLINE VOTING: You can tell by the capitalization that this is one of Jeff Manssero's bills. The goal is to remove all the dumb rules that folks put in to prevent voter fraud in online elections. The rules were really fucking dumb. They are: Voting only between 9am-7pm (uh... way to eliminate one of the big advantages of online voting: no need to schedule time during the day to do it), 5-minute delay between login and voting (too bad, if you're using a public computer), and one vote per computer (download our software! And I hope you own your own computer!). While I imagine Student Action likes that these restrictions will be eliminated, as it will make their job easier, there's a limit to how far you can take being a partisan whore.

A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF ASUC MEMBERSHIP: This is the bill I got Jeff to write for me. (stuff here) It makes it possible to be a member! Basically, it now reads "If you want to be a member, you are!"

A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF 2007 JRP REVISIONS: This is the bill to pass the new JRP revisions.

A Bill in Support of Accurate By-Laws: Er... this looks a lot like a bill from two weeks ago, to strike Title XII of the by-laws regarding the now-illegal Diversity Scholarship Program. I dunno what the difference is, and I'm too lazy to find out.

A Resolution In Support of Eshleman Safety: Allocate TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS for lighting in Lower Sproul. Also, it asks for more CSO dudes for Eshleman.

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 2/14/2007 05:55:00 PM #
Comments (8)

. . .

Comments:

I wrote the Resolution in Support of Reducing Impediments to Online Voting.
And you know how much of a partisan whore *I* am.
Oh, no, I hope senators can read internet-sarcasm...

# posted by  Anonymous : 7:03 PM, February 14, 2007

 

I actually hope they can't. I want them to fret about whether they can trust their Elections Council chair. And then they'll be like "Oh, no, we were too stupid to do our jobs and got backed into a corner, so we don't have a choice!" And then someone spends $20,000 suing the ASUC.

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 8:34 PM, February 14, 2007

 

Ten thousand dollars for lighting in lower sproul?

I assume this is more a prelude to the lower sproul development plans than an actual safety measure. I've posted before how most of Eshleman's safety measures have turned into little more than cameras hooked up to nothing.

I've left Eshleman at every conceivable hour on every day of the week, and I've never thought it was poorly lit. It's actually pretty good. Not saying lights are bad or even that it's a bad idea, just that I don't think it's necessarily a really pressing issue.

# posted by  Simon : 12:01 PM, February 15, 2007

 

I'll be so happy if these impendiments to online voting are in fact removed. Many of them were revisions that had to be added after the fact last year so that the entire online voting package could be passed. They became the gunk that throlled a perfectly good machine.

# posted by  Unknown : 12:29 PM, February 15, 2007

 

Well, they didn't gunk up anything, since they weren't in place last year. And unfortunately, CalSERVE didn't run a full campaign, so they don't have that experience to use to guage whether or not it hurts their party. I think they're idiotic restrictions that only the ASUC could come up with, and removing them later is an interesting approach (compromise, win, then remove the compromise).

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 2:23 PM, February 15, 2007

 

Those limitations that were actually feasible to enforce (e.g. the time restrictions) were in place. By "after the fact," I simply meant after the original bill was proposed and we had to wait 5 weeks to receive specific suggestions about what it would take to get it 14 votes.

# posted by  Unknown : 2:43 PM, February 15, 2007

 

The time limitation was not in place. I'm fairly sure about that one, since I voted without it. Temporary Rule 3 yanked the delay and the one vote rules. I guess Jessica can come and fill us in.

The limitations on networks, however, may have been in place.

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 2:47 PM, February 15, 2007

 

Ah, I was not aware that the time limitation was not in place. As much as I supported the increased suffrage associated with voting on a PC, I voted the old-fashioned way in last year's election.

I am aware that the one-vote rule was squelched (gotta love that word) after David Fullmer of the fourth floor tried to patiently explain to the Senate that this was unworkable.

# posted by  Unknown : 2:51 PM, February 15, 2007

 

Post a Comment