much higher than i thought it would be. Advantage: Student Action.
 

I wouldn't necessarily think that. The higher turnout is likely partially due to TGIF, which enjoyed immense popularity in the Coops - whom are much more like to be calserve/squelch supporters than SA. My source in SA core confirmed that sa fears this is the case.
 

Do co-oppers not normally vote, though?
 

what was the # last year for turnout?
 

I don't think co-oppers vote much usually, so it is very possible TGIF created a surge.

Though I agree with Ben.

PS: I'd been told earlier that Wren had said the turnout was only 9000 votes. Damn anonymous sources; never giving me a good lede.
 

the TGIF search will equally support calserve and sa because calserve was retarded enough not to take advantage of tgif and completely blew it.
 

quota for senate: 507 votes.

highest yet.
 

It's not necessarily the case that all voters voted on the Senate race, so quota may be a bit lower.

Also keep in mind that quota bears only a passing relation to "the number of votes you need to win," since most Senators do not reach quota.
 

there were 11000 votes last year, it went slightly down, kind of surprising considering the fact that two parties ran this year
 

Yeah, 400 some odd votes is still probably about what you need.

The larger turnout numbers definitely make me at least consider that SA could've won 10 or 11 senators instead of the 9 I thought.

It's getting increasingly hard to handicap these elections because the online stuff really puts all the campaigning behind closed doors. You can't watch people walk 40 friends to the polls anymore.
 

For example, quota last year was only 419. The minimum number of votes to win was 324.

The total number of votes in the "Votes" file from last year was 9598. I don't know if this is all votes, however, as none of the votes in this file voted for no candidates at all. I don't know if those voters which only voted on propositions were included. The last vote was numbered 10894. I don't know how the file is formatted, so maybe someone can enlighten us.
 

Only 8 reached quota, by the way.
 

ya, why would anyone expect a lower turnout given the much higher level of campaigning, etc?

and the huge campaign from tgif
 

Last year's turnout was 10,892. So I guess it's a decline of sorts. Has enrollment gone up or down?
 

I expected a lower turnout because I perceived less visible nonpartisan reminders to vote, including date and website and polling place location, compared to last year. Also last year turnout was inflated by the University pushing the RSF referendum.

Glad to see turnout only dropped a little. However, I think that there was a decline at all suggests a continued need for physical polling places to maintain nonpartisan voting visibility, as brought up by I think Simon earlier.

Not sure who this benefits, will be interesting to see, but I think my prediction of 9-10 SA, 7-8 CS is still about right.
 

The campaigns seemed much less lively this year than last year even though CalSERVE didn't run execs last year. That's why I thought it was going down.

It was also just anecdotal. I mean before one or two of my friends would be planning to vote; this year none of them would've voted if I didn't twist their arms.
 

See, to me, I thought the campaigns were livelier this year. CalSERVE was constantly on Sproul this year and their fliers and chalking were visible -- whereas last year they seemed to be only phoning and going to student groups or something, with just a few flyers and not much sign-holding presence.
 

CalSERVE was definitely better this year. I just felt like the energy on campus was really not there for all the groups.

It didn't feel like election week. Maybe that's from fewer polls or less advertising; I don't know. But nothing made me feel like if I wasn't already involved in the ASUC that I'd have really understood what was going on and why it was happening, let alone who to vote for.

Clearly I was wrong because I really thought this year's total was going to be under 10,000.
 

Last year's turnout was approximately similar, but also had a popular referendum.

Despite this, the initial quota was only 419, meaning that only approximately 8400 people (of 1080 - about 78%) voted for the ASUC Senate.

The lowest vote count for a Senator was approximately 320. If you add up the votes that actually counted in the end, it amounts to about 7850 - a loss of 550.

The average Senate vote count? 374. That's your target number.
 

SA leadership has recognized in the past few years that lower voter turnout is actually good for them, contrary to what they had previously believed. This thought emerged the last time they swept the exec seats legitimately, which was also a year with a very low voter turn out.

Given CalSERVES broad, "we don't wanna spend your money," borrowed-from-squelch rhetoric, I really don't think high voter turn out is an SA advantage this year.
 

I didn't realize that something that CalSERVE has been saying for 23 years was borrowed from Squelch. Damn my math must be wrong.
 

The difference has been that while CalSERVE has been putting up this fight for all of their illustrious 23 year history, they have generally a) not prioritized it over other messages and b) focused less on ASUC fees and more on tuition issues.

SQUELCH! has made student fee efficiency a key issue every year while focusing on concrete, achievable goals for making campus life more cost-effective, if not cheaper altogether.

For some reason, CalSERVE has found it important to re-emphasize student fee issues this year. That's great, and I support it. After the success we had with the message last year, CalSERVE may have similar success.