Referenda stuff

There were 10629 voters, out of 32930 students (32.28% turnout).

Elections Flexibility Constitutional Amendment
Yes: 3896 (36.65%)
No: 3265 (30.72%)
Abstain: 3468 (32.63%)

Line of Succession Amendment
Yes: 5295 (49.82%)
No: 1078 (10.14%)
Abstain: 4256 (40.04%)

Greek Life Amendment
Yes: 2561 (24.09%)
No: 6611 (62.20%)
Abstain: 1457 (13.71%)

The Heuristic Squelch Life Fee Referendum
Yes: 2910 (27.38%)
No: 5651 (53.17%)
Abstain: 2068 (19.46%)

The Green Initiative Fund Referendum
Yes: 6528 (61.42%) (19.82% of campus)
No: 2899 (27.27%)
Abstain: 1202 (11.31%)

The Student Union Complex Fee Referendum
Yes: 2733 (25.71%)
No: 5613 (52.81%)
Abstain: 2283 (21.48%)

Student Life Fee Referendum
Yes: 3033 (28.54%)
No: 5534 (52.07%)
Abstain: 2062 (19.40%)


I'll have some info about correlations later. Just remember that when folks talk about how "the campus" passed TGIF, not even 20% supported it. Also, if the ASUC used a reasonable process for constitutional amendments (where you actually have to convince voters to support you, rather than just convince them not to oppose you), the Line of Succession Amendment may not have passed, either.

(Some of these calculations may be off. Feel free to point them out if you catch them)

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 4/19/2007 02:05:00 PM #
Comments (6)

. . .

Comments:

Beetle, if people don't bother to vote, that's their decision. There's almost no election other than one-candidate elections where if you deduct people who don't vote, you get over 50% of people supporting soemthing.

So yes, I think it's quite justified to say "the campus" (or I would say, "the students") passed TGIF.

Still, thanks for presenting these detailed numbers!

# posted by  jimf : 2:37 PM, April 19, 2007

 

I don't see how that takes away from my argument. Yes, they didn't bother to vote to support it. I guess they didn't care enough to support it. Thus, claiming that it passed with the support of "the campus" is bullshit, just like saying a room with 499 apathetic people and one dude asking for a cheeseburger means that "these people are clamoring for cheeseburgers!"

Apathy is not support. It's not even close. I'm not making a policy statement here, that it shouldn't have passed or whatever, but I'm trying to head off the rhetoric that a campus that didn't show up to support something "supports" it.

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 2:56 PM, April 19, 2007

 

Well, what I meant was they didn't show up to oppose it so considering how blanketed the campus was with TGIF material, they were tacitly okay with it.

Separately, the extension of your argument is that it's never okay to say the relevant contsituency supports anything after an election. So, for instance, U.S. citizens in Californian do not support Proposition 209. U.S. citizens in California do not support Arnold Schwarzenegger.

That might be something I'd say if I were being petulant, but it's not something I really believe.

# posted by  jimf : 3:28 PM, April 19, 2007

 

How about "If they didn't show up to support it, they were tacitly opposed to it"? The simple fact is that the TGIF campaign was unable to get more than 20% of the campus to show up to support their fee referendum. They have no basis to say "the campus supports us," because they sure as hell didn't show up to do so.

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 3:32 PM, April 19, 2007

 

By the way, you are right. When folks win elections, they can't say "the people support me," and I wish they wouldn't act like it. There's a procedure for elections, and that procedure is followed to create certain rules/put some dude in office. I would appreciate it a whole lot if folks would not say that anything more than that happens, such as "The PEOPLE (or maybe half of them) have spoken!"

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 3:35 PM, April 19, 2007

 

Fair enough, I see your point.

# posted by  jimf : 3:40 PM, April 19, 2007

 

Post a Comment