. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nap Time!!!

Saturday, March 21, 2009

I'm hearing that Meghana Dhar (Student Action) wants the Elections Council to change the number for Kortney McBride (CalSERVE), because it's 69. Haha, I guess. I don't think the Elections Council should take orders from current Senators when avoidable, and in this case, one would suspect that Dhar figures that McBride could get more votes on account of the number.

I'm sorry, but 69 is a legitimate number, and there's no "sex position" exception in mathematics. ("No, 74 - 5 doesn't equal anything. I don't know where you heard that it did.") Giving 69 such a special role is also very uncreative, and this is Berkeley.

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 3/21/2009 12:24:00 AM #
Comments (9)
. . .
Does the GA have to deal with this kind of nonsense all the time?
I know this seems humorous, Beetle, but my opinion stems from respect for voter equity. The risk of even one voter choosing to vote McBride for Senate for her number instead of any other reason makes it an unfair numerical assignment.

We haven't had a #69 candidate in 2 years for a reason.....
There are actually two reasons, and I'm pretty sure neither of is the one you're suggesting.

In 2007, the Elections Council held its candidates meeting before the filing deadline, when the Senate failed to pass its referenda bills on time and the filing deadline was postponed. As a result, the Elections Council needed to leave space for additional independents to add. Thus, the Senate numbering went straight from 59 to 70 (instead of 60), because simply changing the 10s digit on the scribbled listing was the simplest approach.

Last year, it looks pretty much like a coincidence to me, in that 60s were reserved for the Student Advocate, and there weren't 9 candidates.

All numbers have properties that may convince people to vote for them. Multiples of 11 are probably easier to remember, as are multiples of 10. As long as we have numbers, this problem is just one we have to deal with, just like being at the top or bottom of a ballot. The ASUC uses random assignment to deal with it. To then selectively remove offending numbers (after they've already been assigned) is a far greater threat to candidate equity than being randomly assigned a number with baggage.
This got me curious enough to open the old tabulator...

#69 wins in 2001
#69 loses in 2002
No #69 in 2003 (why, Beetle?)
#69 loses in 2004
#69 loses in 2005
#69 loses in 2006
No #69 in 2007 or 2008

I don't see any advantage. Perhaps students on this campus are so easily swayed by numbers that look like sexual positions.
*aren't so easily swayed. Sorry, I was too excited in making my point to check for typos.
I think it's insulting to assume that people will vote for candidate #69 just because of the number's juvenile sexual connotation
WOW. This is the crap Student Action senators waste time on? Bogus, childish arguments? Stop wasting the election council's time Meghana.
Stop being stupid, Meghana.

Maybe she's jealous
Post a Comment

. . .