12:49PM- Way too tired after watching this damn bus fare vote at the City Council to post a lengthy narrative so here are four thoughts for the coming days:
- What went wrong for ASM? Not a single ASM member I spoke with has said their campaign was run as efficiently as possible. In just one example: they had the endorsement of the College Democrats, but did not ask them for volunteers or have a strategy session with their operatives. How is this possible a week after watching Bryon Eagon destroy his competition in District 8? Other commenters make great points about poor political management with key endorsements and bad strategy in approaching student organizations.
Many ASM members were relying on lit drops and chalking (see about 20 comments re: this from yesterday on my blog) as opposed to face-to-face time. Vote Yes didn’t even organize sympathetic freshmen to canvass around the dorms, a STAPLE of ALL successful local campaigns. They are just not used to this type of work and the systemic failures of Vote Yes embody much of the larger scale errors plaguing ASM. With only a handful of on the ground supporters (estimated at 10 by Vote Yes leadership) it seems like the GOTV efforts were an after thought led by novice local campaign organizers.
- What’s next? Disband, as the Badger Herald editorial board penned today? I don’t think that will happen or get the support of both the victorious Vote No group or the current ASM and thus is a pipe dream. While Vote No will slate candidates, it will be tough for them to secure a majority vote and even if they do, the organization will be splintered enough to stop radical shifts in the make up of ASM’s Council or at the least, will be unable to find long-term sustainability as David Lapidus notes and pretty much any ASM historian also knows — these things are cyclical, year-by-year.
However, if ASM’s leadership is smart (Wright, Weigand, Paulson, Tackett, Gosselin, etc) they will band together, working with allies of the Vote Yes effort, and create their own “reform” slate. Recruit some good candidates in L&S but also less represented areas (i.e. engineering). You can let hundreds of hours of work go to waste, or you can dust yourself off and prepare for the next election in late spring. The ball in this election was in the Vote No court — they simply needed to make the “No” argument while ASMhad lengthy Constitutional/bylaw meetings and dealt with the regulations of also having a “neutral, just go vote” effort, which sucked up many of their resources. That disparity won’t happen if Vote Yes supporters slate reformist candidates.
- Campus press dwelling. Expect it to dominate the news tomorrow and opinions for the next week. What’s next? Probably a shift back into City Council coverage just before – or perhaps just after - Spring Break as there will be more endorsements down the line and yet another round of GOTV efforts. Konkel vs Maniaci in District 2 is the most competitive, although Eagon’s efforts and the growing student support for Hamilton in the 5th will be interesting to watch.
- What side “wins” debates are stupid. Whether it’s District 8 or ASM or a keg race: when 10% of a district or 15% of a student body votes, you still have 8-9/10 students not participating. Yes, it’s great 15% of the student body came out, and actually for the D8 race the turn out mirrored state turn out percentages across the state, so all in all neither were “bad”. But neither are also “representative”.
ASM did an incredibly poor job organizing so hats off to Vote No, but this is no victory for hippies or socialists. Theycampaigned on how diverse their group was, specifically denying it as a leftist-only organization. If it were, ASM would have won. Look no further than Katrina Flores to see proof of that.
While the Vote No side did not deny strong ties to far-left organizers, this was no “Progressive Dane [just to name an organization], far left” vs. “College Democrats [just to name an organization], moderate left” fight like in a City Council race. We’re far ingrained into this Judge vs Woods like mindset (like a Dem vs GOP national election) that quite frankly, isn’t always based in an on the ground reality. In the case of the Dems, while they took a side and sent out some emails, I can only think of one active member that worked for Vote Yes.
Yet if this were just a CAN/ISO/PD vs the world election, there wouldn’t have been the faux-outrage at the Herald’s commentary on the Vote No efforts, and none of the pre-election postering over what group and identity politic organizations back who and to what degree. But, as I said in my previous post, it’s all politics, baby. So you have to take a lot of the post-electoral posturing in stride. Remember, it was only a week ago a PD candidate couldn’t make it past a primary in perhaps the supposedly one of the most “radical” districts in Madison (also in an election where the real “guns” come out, involving complicated fundraising, policy debates, and support from well-trained operatives) so much of this doesn’t add up and that’s basically my point. Same goes for “moderate” victories. Obviously I think the students here are more of the “moderate-progressive bent” when counted in say a census, but that doesn’t really matter when it’s time to get to a ballot box!
- I forgot to note this awesome CB-lingo making it into the Herald the other day. No, it’s not a trademark CB word or phrase, I’m not that arrogant, but the link to the site? Fun stuff.
We in the chattering class have watched it much like the handful of people who watch the World Series of Bowling must gorge themselves on its airing on ESPN in the wee hours of the morning
No ASM members, no campus elite and no members of the press. Just regular students — history majors, medical students, undecideds and the rest of the individuals making up the student body who just focus on getting through the semester with decent grades.
10:47PM- ASM fixed the press release. Still… symbolism, anyone?
10:19PM- It doesn’t get much better for ASM. In their post-election press release:
Even though ASM will not operate under a new governing model, the idea of reform will remain as the focus for leadership. “quote from Brittany about all the good things we can still do.”
10:14PM- Update: Not to brag, or anything 
But fresh off my bad prediction (like everyone else) on District 8, I got this one right on the money:
I think turn out will be higher, about 15%, maybe even 20%. I have decided I think ASMdidanpoor job with their campaign and that the Constitution vote will fail, maybe by a 60-40% margin.
82 Comments
February 24, 2009 at 10:15 pm
fuck.
February 24, 2009 at 10:18 pm
^^^^
THIS
February 24, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Welcome to Madison, kids.
Hippies reign supreme.
February 24, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Sad day for asm and student government at uw. Jeff W. must be feeling pretty bad right now. Couple hundred hours spent writing a new constitution (which was needed) that’s now meaningless.
February 24, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Nah, they’ll just pull it Union-style. The results were invalid! Go to SJ!
February 24, 2009 at 10:28 pm
ASM did an incredibly poor job organizing so hats off to Vote No, but this is no victory for hippies or socialists. They campaigned on how diverse their group was, specifically denying it as a leftist-only organization. If it were, ASM would have won. Look no further than Katrina Flores to see proof of that.
February 24, 2009 at 10:30 pm
i completely disagree. it’s not connor o’hagan-esque, it’s not symbolic of the organization, its indicative of the bullshit fear-tactics the vote no campaign engaged in.
the campus simply wants more of the same, bullshit student government that has existed for years. what the fuck, campus.
February 24, 2009 at 10:32 pm
I love that the Pave advisor (UW employed staff member encouraging students to vote No) has a facebook status of “Rock it, students. Now make it better. Participate!”
Umm…all you GSSF groups who are hopping back on your gravy train…you’re going to fix ASM now, right? Hey, guys? Chynna?
February 24, 2009 at 10:36 pm
It’s put up or shut up time for the “Vote No” crowd. They now have total responsibility for the future of ASM.
February 24, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Vote Yes lost, Vote No won. You don’t see Katrina slandering Bryon and Mark up and down campus after she lost. The fear tactics, character attacks, and down right horrible things said about the people in Vote No failed. You guys McCained the Vote Yes effort, by trying to paint the Vote No leaders as lunatics, and the organizations who backed them as “palling around with activists”. Go back to the drawing board, work with the Vote No people to craft something better and then…Pass it.
February 24, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Have ya’all seen the class turn out? Seniors ~30%, Freshmen ~5%. A lot can be extrapolated from this.
February 24, 2009 at 10:48 pm
The fear tactics, character attacks and horrible things that were said were far from exclusive to the Vote Yes side.
I would also venture to guess that most of the people commenting about this anonymously on the CB were far from involved with either side of the campaign.
February 24, 2009 at 10:48 pm
ehhh, you’d be surprised
February 24, 2009 at 10:52 pm
“Have ya’all seen the class turn out? Seniors ~30%, Freshmen ~5%. A lot can be extrapolated from this.”
Not so fast. Make sure you compare this to a breakdown of how many people are in each class. The way the class system is designed with AP credits, transfer students, 5 year seniors and only requiring 24 credits to become a sophomore there are significantly more upperclassmen than freshman. What you’re implying might be true, but the numbers you cite are number of voters from each class as a % of total voters, not as a percentage of total students in each class.
February 24, 2009 at 10:53 pm
I’m not sure how “class” is determined for this election – I think it’s on basis of credits, and with all of the AP credits students come in with, by 2nd semester many students are officially “sophomores” even if they’ve only been on campus since the fall.
The skew is still towards upperclassmen. Even if there are more 1st year “sophomores”, compared to juniors it doesn’t look like there are quite as many there should be.
February 24, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Patrick, it’s fractioned enough such that it’s very clear which groups voted more. The average UW student comes in with less than 10 AP credits. You’re going to have some, but not many freshmen counted as sophs, and so forth.
Either way, whether you’re a 4th or 5th year “senior” the point is still salient: older students voted in much higher numbers and I would wager by a significant margin. We’ll never get the data to prove to what degree, though.
February 24, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Press release fixed.
February 24, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Herald, Cardinal, abd CDems vs The Far Left.
Winner?
Who runs what around here?
Lots to take home with this one. Biggest lesson learned: ASM needs to learn how to run a campaign.
February 24, 2009 at 10:58 pm
I misread your comment.
I don’t think there is a “winner”. ASM =/= Dems, the dems didn’t do a lick of organizing outside of an email, which means nothing (even Vote No brought up how the Dems were not in an organizing role). And the Vote No coaliltion specifically discussed the diversity of the group.
The reality is that ASM, as expected, was inept at the campaign-level, and the Vote No group was both better and far, far, more grassroots.
February 24, 2009 at 11:01 pm
ASM to the left, D8 to the Cdems, which means it will come down to…next spring’s county board race???
February 24, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Yeah, because students voting over poop in the lakes (seriously the only salient issue last time around) means shit. Pun intended.
February 24, 2009 at 11:04 pm
This is entirely the fault of the Vote Yes coalition. They did a horrendous job marketing this thing. They should’ve sat down with these GSSF groups and come to a general consensus about a new constitution before pushing this thing to a vote.
How can you shut out several key groups, such as MSCS, CWC, PAVE, and others and then expect this thing to pass? Come on. They should’ve saw this coming. Vote No put out a helluva effort on this thing, but the group wouldn’t have existed if Vote Yes didn’t make an honest attempt to build a consensus around it.
February 24, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Correction: the group wouldn’t have existed if Vote Yes made an honest attempt to build a consensus around it.
February 24, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Data from spring semester is very difficult to come by, but going off of fall enrollment levels look how much the numbers get skewed to much more equal turnout rates.
Freshman – 394/5282 = 7.46%
Sophomores – 1139/6206 = 18.35%
Juniors – 1339/7509 = 17.8%
Seniors – 1770/10156= 17.4%
Considering that the numbers of sophomores, juniors and seniors should remain relatively constant as approximately the same number of people become sophomores as are no longer sophomores (aka become juniors), I would say these turnout numbers are fairly accurate and very close to the overall undergrad turnout rate of 17%. While it’s true that freshman turnout might have been low, remember that there are very few new freshman in the spring, but it only takes 24 credits to become a sophomore. That’s 10 AP credits and 14 credits of classes taken in the fall.
February 24, 2009 at 11:08 pm
they probably did not reach out as much as they should have, but ASM probably did not think a coalition would be formed to oppose them either
February 24, 2009 at 11:09 pm
OK so even then under vs upperclassmen … point stands
February 24, 2009 at 11:10 pm
I loved pissing to a VOTE YES flier taped to the wall in the front of a stall in engineering.
Anyways, who’s pumped for The Roots to be Jimmy Fallon’s band?!
February 24, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Totally agree with you, WTF. ASM failed to initiate any form of connection between ALL of the GSSF groups. In addition, who was in charge of the Vote Yes campaign?
Clearly the process was either to little or too late. Regardless, their lack of work is evident in the polls.
The reason for the sudden push to pass the constitution was to allow it to be readily available for students to campaign before the spring elections – a major fault of theirs, however (in addition to not achieving a positive GSSF consensus) was ASM’s inability to send out Bylaws within an adequate space of time before the vote.
February 24, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Thoughts on this: ASM Vote Yes supporters spent too much time focusing and rushing the bylaws at the last minute that it crowded out campaign planning. Kind of how I see the Vote No crowding out help for Katrina Flores which after tonight seems stunningly obvious.
February 24, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Not necessarily, it wouldn’t be that unreasonable for there to be less than 3000 actual freshman which would put the freshman turnout rate right about the same as other classes. With 68% percent of this years freshman class submitted AP scores not to mention IB tests and credit for college classes taken during high school, is it that unreasonable to think that half of them might have had 10 or so credits coming in? I would say no.
February 24, 2009 at 11:30 pm
No dude, go ask admissions. Most of those 70% or so are not AP Scholars, they had one or two classes. I don’t know where the .pdf is, or if it’s even published, but I asked before out of my own curiosity.
I also think you’re vastly overstating the academic strength of the undergraduate class, where 50% of the kids had 26-27 on the ACT, 3.5s, and were not top 10% in quite a few (poor) high schools. Not to mention the popularity of English and Comm Arts 100 – two very intro level courses that you can test out of with AP courses.
I get that transfer rates and high school credits will skew the numbers, but I am highly skeptical it would result in anything near an equal distribution.
February 24, 2009 at 11:30 pm
“I loved pissing to a VOTE YES flier taped to the wall in the front of a stall in engineering.”
BUBBLES PISSED ON A VOTE YES FLIER. HE MUST BE BLAMED FOR THE LOSS OF THE VOTE. THE STUDENT BODY THANKS BUBBLES FOR HIS DISGUSTING INDISCRETION. PLEASE BUBBLES, SEND OUT A PICTURE OF YOU THAT THE DISGRUNTLED STUDENT CLASS CAN PISS OR DEFECATE ON.
“Anyways, who’s pumped for The Roots to be Jimmy Fallon’s band?!”
I BET THAT SINCE THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED BY NBC TO USE ANY COPYRIGHTED AND LICENSED MUSIC SINCE THE SHOW IS UNTESTED AND THUS THEY MUST RECORD ORIGINAL 30 MUSIC CLIPS AND WASTE AN INSANE AMOUNT OF TIME, THAT UNTIL IT STARTS THE ROOTS ARE NOT EXCITED.
February 24, 2009 at 11:39 pm
To the Vote Yes Group’s credit, the bulwark of the group consisted of about 10 students (most of whom were also involved in top leadership of ASM already, a handful of grad/professional students & who also had obligations to creating the constitution & bylaws)
The Vote No had a larger core group than the Vote Yes had foot soldiers. Vote No’s endorsers worked the campaign, Vote Yes’s did not send manpower.
February 24, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Unrelated, don’t know if you caught the news, but:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5izz2d0G-HISnM9OtAp_sCX_JDNNAD96ID4680
February 25, 2009 at 12:00 am
I’m pretty content to stay out of this tonight and just relax, but I did just want to respond to Logical Murkiness, just to make sure the record is clear: no one on the Vote Yes side is at all disappointed with any of the groups that endorsed a Yes vote. Many of them might have sent help had they been asked. They did everything we asked them to do, and we are most appreciative of that.
There is much to critique about the Vote Yes effort, but no one should try and place any blame for the unsuccessful outcome of the vote on the part of the groups that endorsed the new constitution.
February 25, 2009 at 12:01 am
^^^^^
Fair enough, murkiness, but why didn’t ASM recruit more people after they figured this was going to be an uphill battle? Why did every student group I speak with seem so enthralled with voting no? Was it because Vote No made a concerted effort to TALK to them?
It’s just crazy, really. Don’t bring a banana (phallic reference intended) to a gun fight – especially when the other person started shooting several months ago.
February 25, 2009 at 12:56 am
[...] Campus Left and “Vote No” By David L It remains controversial whether the victory of “Vote No” forces against the proposed ASM constitution is a fundamental political triumph for the campus Left or of [...]
February 25, 2009 at 1:18 am
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=puns
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is for anyone that says
“____ intended”
February 25, 2009 at 1:24 am
[http://www.winterson.com.nyud.net:8090/pics/swb251lt.jpg]
February 25, 2009 at 2:57 am
This entire vote will be overturned. The campaigning in the dorms is very serious. ASM did not engage in this behavior because it is banned and Vote No may may have collected enough from the dorms to win.
http://badgerherald.com/news/2009/02/25/fail.php
“Allegations saying the Vote No Coalition violated campaigning laws may also initiate an appeal of the election results to the Student Judiciary, said ASM member Kurt Gosselin.
“There were allegations that they were dorm storming, though we don’t have any proof yet,” Gosselin said, referring to the illegal process of knocking on the doors of students and telling them to vote a certain way. “If there were to be a violation or something of the sort, we’d consider all our options to the course of action we’d pursue thereafter.”
ASM also has pictures of the Vote No Coalition violating an election rule prohibiting campaigning within 100 feet of a polling station, Gosselin said.
The pictures reveal violators with “Vote No” signs next to two computers or more within Gordon Commons and the Humanities Building.
Gosselin said the committee is encouraging students who have seen or heard anything regarding campaign violations to come forward.
Haas said she knows nothing about the claims”
February 25, 2009 at 3:15 am
HA — bravo Critical Badger. Unless you had access to the early voting tabulations (wouldn’t be surprised if you did) you predicted the outcome almost perfectly.
15% turnout and 60-40 split.
February 25, 2009 at 4:28 am
Well, today i was taking a fucking nap. a great one. so i could celebrate Mardi Gras as hard as I did tonight. However, I was awoken from my slumbers from some prick banging on my door. Turns out he told me Vote No and handed me a vote no flier deal. Make of it what you want.
February 25, 2009 at 5:15 am
So, confirmed in the dorms. I wonder how different the vote total would have been if asm had gone that route. Enough to change the outcome? Is this the beginning of a success case?
February 25, 2009 at 5:20 am
Successful*
February 25, 2009 at 9:53 am
First, were you really up at 5 in the morning posting?
Second: Badger Herald Front Page today is the best I’ve seen from either paper in my 5 years here. “FAIL”
Third: It was an online election. Every computer on campus is a polling station. There were, in effect, myriad violations of the less than however many feet from a polling location rule.
Fourth: Disband?
February 25, 2009 at 10:34 am
A few thoughts.
Some people have touched on why I think ASM lost this one. Overall, the strategy was fairly sound. Our biggest problem was in line with why we started this process in the first place: the average member of ASM (council, volunteer, otherwise) wasn’t as invested in passing the measure as much as vote no folks were in defeating it. Plain and simple. Indeed, constitutional committee people were the ones leading the vote yes effort, and this was our misstep. We should have delegated this responsibility, but I’m not sure who would have taken the reins or if they would have executed the campaign in the right way. If we had the resources and people-power to carry out a flawless operation, we probably wouldn’t be here in the first place.
Second, as DS outlines in the post, we spent a ton of time on the bylaws and financial code because that was the pledge. But this drained VALUABLE time that should have been used toward crafting and pushing our message. By the time we finished, we had less than two weeks, and a lot of ground to make up.
Third, despite repeated attempts to reassure groups that the prospect of a student dictator is the most asinine of notions, it was damn near impossible to refute the lies that Vote No folks were hurling. Groups funded under the current system came to view the new structure as a risk not worth taking, and many thought that the president could veto individual budgets, which of course is not true.
February 25, 2009 at 10:38 am
This argument that the vote should be overturned/whatever is slightly ridiculous. By all means, then let’s look at the election from last week – Eagon’s people were all over the dorms, slipping fliers under the doors – does this mean we go back and take him out of the running because of illegal campaigning? I don’t think so. I think Gosselin’s ego was hurt that the constitution didn’t pass and is looking for any excuse to yell fault. Illegal campaigning happens for every event – am I saying it’s right? Absolutely not – but to say that there should be an investigation, etc. is ludicrous. What’s to say there weren’t people on a Vote Yes rampage somewhere in the dorms? That would make the argument of illegal campaigning moot.
February 25, 2009 at 10:44 am
As far as any allegations of election rule violations in dorms go, it probably won’t be enough to demand a new election. If you look at past cases with similar facts, SJ usually just demands a letter of apology from the violating party (see SEC v. Eagon, 2006 ASM SJ 11, Williams v. Werner, 2006 ASM SJ 6). This type of violation hasn’t come up under the new rules regarding campaigning for referenda or initiatives, which were passed in the wake of the Spring 2006 election cycle, but I doubt SJ would treat it much differently.
February 25, 2009 at 11:08 am
“Overall, the strategy was fairly sound.”
No, it wasn’t. You got your asses handed to you. That is not the outcome a “sound” strategy delivers.
February 25, 2009 at 11:18 am
Re: Jeff Wright -The Vote Yes group had a sound strategy, just not the man power nor the time to follow through with it. The execution was the problem, so to say that the strategy wasn’t sound is incorrect.
February 25, 2009 at 12:42 pm
What exactly was this “strategy” you speak of?
February 25, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Is the herald site down?
February 25, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Happening a lot, isn’t it?
February 25, 2009 at 1:23 pm
use your magic beloit powers
February 25, 2009 at 1:25 pm
On the bus fare increase at the council, I stuck around until the bitter end (1:40am) and took notes on the comments.
Click above.
February 25, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Yeah. It is.
February 25, 2009 at 2:41 pm
I didn’t vote cuz my blackberry wouldn’t load the vote page.
February 25, 2009 at 2:51 pm
I didn’t vote because the ASM page figured out I wasn’t an UW-Madison student.
February 25, 2009 at 3:57 pm
If Jeff Wright could clone himself a few times, the constitution would’ve passed with flying colors.
Strategy doesn’t make a difference if there isn’t the means for implementation. Other members of ASM didn’t have Wright’s determination – end of story.
It’s just a shame that the constitution was voted down on the vote no coalition’s bullshit.
February 25, 2009 at 3:58 pm
He can’t claim any victory for “the left” after last night because the disorganization of the opposition, and also has to deal with not even a single Progressive Dane candidate running in a campus ward for the spring.
February 25, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Did Verveer or Konkel leave PD this morning?
February 25, 2009 at 4:25 pm
The disorganization doesn’t seem to be stopping Kyle from claiming a victory for the left…
Once again, Kyle gets to have it both ways. Guess that’s what happens when you aren’t shackled down by horrible things like “logic.”
February 25, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Verveer does jack shit for the hippie-socialist kids on campus, he’s not their “PD” alder, in fact more of a College Democrat guy, and Konkel is too far away. District 8 and to a lesser extent, District 5 are the only coveted seats both of which are going to Democrats.
February 25, 2009 at 4:28 pm
When the College Dems win, it’s with grace. When SPD wins, since they’re not used to it, they have to soak up all the glory because it’ll be a few more years.
February 25, 2009 at 4:36 pm
It could be MCSC and CWC celebrating more publicly, but we don’t want anyone to feel insecure for another two years
February 25, 2009 at 4:40 pm
We did not campaign against the ASM Constitution because we are members of the socialist party, Progressive Dane, or any left group so to claim this as anything more than a mandate from students is over the top. No political party or opinion “won” yesterday, just students.
February 25, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Kyle wrote just a week or two ago about how the College Democrats were having a non-organizing role in the Vote Yes effort, which was painfully obvious yesterday.
Now it’s the College Democrats fault it failed?
wtf, mate
February 25, 2009 at 5:01 pm
I am so sick of these SPDs fucking with our campus with their distortions downright lies and pompous rhetoric. Kyle Szarzynski and Adam Porton, who basically run the show at SPD, are two of the most arrogant bastards I have ever met. Maybe this victory was theirs, but what’s the result? Now ASM is stuck with the same old problems of ineffectiveness and disorganization. Months of work by hard-working people have gone to waste. They smeared the opposition and lied to the voters. If they are the winners, the student body are the losers. I wish someone would tell Kyle, Adam, and the rest of their crew that no one wants to listen to their BS anymore.
February 25, 2009 at 5:07 pm
They’ve already fucked themselves. They can’t win the presidency because it doesn’t exist, they won’t win the chair because they can’t get the seats, and Katrina Flores’ shitshow of a campaign – a MAJOR loss to the college dems, is a huge black mark against the organization. Add Wyndham Manning’s reception on campus to the pile and you’ve got a terrible record.
February 25, 2009 at 5:13 pm
I think the one thing missing from this debate is the responsibility that now lies with the vote no crowd. Their campaign did not produce an alternative or better system/constitution, but instead they campaigned that the current system is fine and simply needs reform from within. “Vote Yes” offered their reform. It is now the responsibility of Vote No to offer theirs. The result of this vote means that every time ASM fails, every screw up, every controversy, every lack of a position taken on an important issue, is now the responsibility of the “vote no” crowd as it is completely their responsibility that we still have the system we do.
They key to their credibility now is whether they can continue the energy they had in the election and translate that into real reform for ASM. Most likely, though, they will probably go back to their student orgs and forget about all this reform business because their real goal was just to protect the pork barrel spending, which benefits a select few student organizations. I hope they do take responsibility though and prove me wrong.
February 25, 2009 at 5:19 pm
March 2nd…MTV’s College Life and Conan is replaced by Jimmy Fallon. Two immaculate tv shows being shown for the first time.
Will you watch them?
(insert yellow piece of paper with VOTE YES)
(insert yellow piece of paper with VOTE NO)
February 25, 2009 at 5:26 pm
If vote no is unable to secure a majority or plurality on student council, and vote yes is the leading group, it will be on vote yes to once again fix it unless the rumored mass resignations and possible boycotts of spring elections take place, i dont think people are going to just let vote no steam roll into power
February 25, 2009 at 5:34 pm
[...] While I find the speculation of what went wrong interesting, I feel like one point is not being discussed. When it comes down to it, this was not a referendum on the old constitution versus the new constitution. I think we all agree that 99% of those who voted had not read either. This was a referendum on people. [...]
February 25, 2009 at 6:45 pm
WOULD IT BE A PROBLEM TO CALL FOR THE IMMEDIATE ASSASSINATION OF A PARTICULAR CRITICAL BADGER POSTER?
February 25, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Yea, I agree, CB, get rid of Anti-Bubbles. That kids such a fucking tool.
February 25, 2009 at 6:50 pm
THIS POST IS ABOUT ASM, NEITHER FUCKING MTV NOR NBC.
POSTERS SHOULD STICK TO THE GODDAMN TOPICS OR FACE THE APPLICATION OF CONSEQUENCES.
NAMELY: *CHANGES* TO THEIR LIVES.
February 25, 2009 at 10:10 pm
I hate to be an enabler, (And I certainly hate to post off topic. Sorry!) But I think Anti-Bubbles is legitimately hilarious. Kudos to you!
February 25, 2009 at 11:31 pm
THE MASSES HAVE ASKED FOR AN ANTI-BUBBLES BLOG.
AND AS ANTI-BUBBLES IS A BENEVOLENT TROLL, HE HAS DELIVERED.
THE ANTI-BUBBLES BLOG, TITLED “ANTI-BUBBLES” RESPONSE, MAY BE FOUND HERE:
ANTI-BUBBLES.BLOGSPOT.COM.
ENJOY.
FUCK BUBBLES.
February 26, 2009 at 12:01 am
February 26, 2009 at 1:25 am
PROPS APPRECIATED.
ANONYMOUS POSTER, I CAN ONLY ASSUME YOUR ENTHUSIASM IS ROOTED IN A LIKEWISE PASSIONATE HATRED FOR A CERTAIN BUBBLY BLOGGER.
February 26, 2009 at 2:10 am
Re: Pickled_Tofu
Part of a successful campaign “strategy” is having the means to execute that strategy. They didn’t have a means to do so, therefore, the “strategy” failed…miserably.
February 26, 2009 at 9:16 am
What could have been:
(listen to Russell Crow at the beginning, lulz)