The Fall 2009 ASUCD Election means that yet another generation of student leaders was chosen by a small minority of the student body. It was held Tuesday, November 11 8AM - Friday November 13 8AM, and students voted online at The ASUCD Elections Committee decreed from on high that the election shall occur over three days, rather than two, due to the campus being closed for Veterans' Day.

The goal for this page is to have the candidates, issues, parties, dramas, slates, backstories, and dramas discussed in a factual, respectful, and clearly written way to provide students and others with a clear understanding of the process of the ASUCD Election.


The victors

Calling Mo Torres an independent, LEAD loses 1 seat in the Senate, the new JAM wins 2 seats, and the Independents lose a seat.

Based on affiliation at election, LEAD Senators now control 6 seats (50%), JAM 2, ACT 1, and Independents 3.

Vote distribution

Winners names in bold.

  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Abrham Castillo-Ruiz 318 354 285 88 64 40 53 42 39 45 51 54 70 55 58
Andre Lee 560 246 212 184 109 81 51 46 43 40 39 39 28 28 46
Bree Rombi 241 247 222 192 147 86 79 52 38 50 29 37 44 31 27
Christopher Adams 47 22 25 39 41 43 33 30 52 47 47 55 57 117 149
Don Ho 574 335 210 162 129 80 65 54 48 41 27 28 25 15 24
Joel Juarez 418 311 322 98 68 66 51 72 52 47 47 44 50 36 33
Jonathan Ogata 88 90 125 119 101 93 91 77 74 57 53 55 41 18 12
Lauren Corcios 135 166 175 237 145 136 78 73 49 41 43 28 29 21 13
Levi Menovske 324 188 153 174 149 113 59 48 56 46 37 26 30 21 28
Logan R. Taylor 181 160 114 109 111 97 74 62 54 53 59 44 36 30 24
Marina Khan 214 190 148 158 134 90 58 62 49 55 46 57 54 43 30
Marisol Ornelas 280 367 364 98 73 64 63 49 40 36 46 59 49 32 39
Nazir Sayed 94 45 23 44 46 41 39 43 45 48 47 48 44 140 127
Ryan Achterberg 238 224 181 164 132 87 48 44 49 41 53 47 55 35 29
Ryan Gilani 58 92 87 74 74 68 61 61 55 63 68 60 65 43 22
Totals 3770 3037 2646 1940 1523 1185 903 815 743 710 692 681 677 665 661

Quota for the election was 539, meaning LEAD candidates Andre Lee and Don Ho were elected in the first round. It was not until Round 11, the elimination of Marisol Ornelas (the M in JAM), that a third candidate was elected, Joel Juarez (the J in JAM). Joel's subsequent surplus permitted the election of Abrham Castillo-Ruiz (the A in JAM). Finally, Ryan Achterberg, 17 votes short of fellow LEADer Bree Rombi, was eliminated in Round 14, securing victory for both her and Independent Levi Menovske.

The two top competitors for most hated person on campus (Ranked #15) were both students in their first quarter at UC Davis. Christopher Adams, the "winner," was a transfer student and Nazir Sayed was a freshman.

For an alternative voting scenario, visit Bizarro World.

Apparently, there's a new campus slate called JAM. Someone should describe them.



You must be logged in to comment on this page. Please log in.

2009-11-04 22:43:36   I think it's somewhat of a tragedy that the candidates chose not to communicate with this medium however I feel that relevant information should be placed here for those who do read what is on wiki.

I think right now we're at a crossroads with the whole UC Budget Crisis and students are struggling. You can trust candidates like Castillo-Ruiz, Juarez and Ornelas to protect students because they're not the ones asking you to "go fundraise". In this economy?

I am troubled by the LEAD slate's inexperience this time around. Although Don Ho is the most experienced candidate in this election, when you compare LEAD's candidates to candidates like Joel Juarez you can see what they are lacking. While I think the LEAD candidates are commendable for being more in with student government, their "experience" seems to be missing from their analysis.

One such candidate stated that student groups use connections to senators to achieve funding for their groups. Others stated that groups should work through proper channels and fundraise on their own. This is utter hypocrisy given that the LEAD slate, is prominently greek. 80% of their candidates are greek. In the last budget cycle, the LEAD supermajority gave SafeBoats a line-item in the budget and thus is guaranteed student government monies. At the same time the groups LEAD has accused of using "ins" with student government have taken measures to be eligible for CFC Grants and have been efforts of their own for fundraising.

The statements made during the candidates forum represent utter hypocrisy and in these challenging times we cannot afford to vote for the LEAD Slate or any candidates that wish to have a student government that behaves like the UC Regents. We cannot continue to make cuts to critical sectors of our student government in a time where people need them most.

Perhaps I am wrong and I invite people to address these concerns and answer questions. Any responsible candidate would do so.

I'm also making endorsements soon so if you're a candidate, I'd like to hear from you. —GregWebb

  • We totally need a Libertarian platform. No more ASUCD spending for programs that not everybody wants. I do believe that one of the candidates even want in-state tuition rates for those without a legal residency status. —hankim

2009-11-05 22:57:45   i was tempted to run while here in DC just for shit and giggles. —MattBlair

2009-11-05 23:59:46   Ah, student politics. I find it humorous that the government has now degenerated into LEAD versus not LEAD, with LEAD being the "bad guys". Perhaps there will be another scandal for people to write about on the wiki during this next election cycle. —PaulAmnuaypayoat

2009-11-09 12:03:01   Regarding JAM and the LEAD split, I think it's imperative for people who have voted LEAD in the past to strongly examine the reasons why the split has occurred. Although Sigma Chi has produced a couple of great senators this year, it is becoming a bane to the democratic process if the only organized slate continuously places a SigChi candidate on the ballot. Furthermore, the LEAD senate has been lukewarm to underrepresented communities lately. The big tent party that put LEAD in power is not producing results for some of its most passionate supporters. The LEAD I first knew stood for ideals such as Social Justice, Environmental Sustainability.

JAM does not exist because of feelings, JAM exists because of the harsh realities of the new LEAD. LEAD's choice to run candidates that support policies adverse to the students' interests left these candidates with no other choice. You cannot tell students you will stand for them and justify voting in favor a budget that crippled the AS Papers unit and placed under the control of the executive office. People can see through the bullshit, I commend LEAD for making strides toward open-government and ideals I have been preaching but they have abandoned principles I actually liked about them. —GregWebb

  • I personally do not think the AS Papers should be funded at all. With widespread use of the internet and the number of free blogging services out there, AS Papers is a waste of money in my opinion (especially since even the bigger organizations in print media are having trouble). Also (probably am going to be called a racist for this) the main difference I see between LEAD candidates and JAM candidates is that the JAM candidates tend cater to a specific race while those belonging to the LEAD slate attempt to cater to a somewhat larger audience (frat boys will spend students' money to help their own and those in culture clubs will spend the same money to help their own, that's how any large government is going to operate). Of course, I personally do not agree with either side and would be more supportive of a Libertarian-like slate. —hankim

2009-11-09 15:08:22   I think the idea of a "libertarian" student "government" is hilarious... and I'm a libertarian. My liberties are not infringed by ASUCD and their operation. They can't take away my right to free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to assemble... a student "government" is simply incapable of harming my liberties no matter how big and bloated it becomes. Even the usual libertarian argument that taxation is theft doesn't work here. Yes, I think it's stupid that ASUCD even exists and they spend my money like they do. I'd prefer that Unitrans not rely on every student buying a bus pass as part of their enrollment at UC Davis. I don't think the student advocacy that ASUCD is worth a damn. Yes, I think the entire association is a useless money sinking nexus of drama. However, I choose to pay ASUCD fees by being a UC Davis undergraduate. If they really bugged me that much, I could go elsewhere for school or not go to school at all. It's not exactly a tax.

The people who are arguing for "libertarian" student "government" really mean they'd like a smaller student government. This position has nothing to do with libertarianism. You can want the same and hold any number of different political philosophies that aren't libertarian. —WilliamLewis

  • My reasoning is that people should not be forced to support useless programs or organizations that they do no agree with just because they want an education from a public university. I find requiring students to pay for AS Papers or Culture Days to attend a university (especially a public one) unfair. Public universities exist to provide an affordable education and paying for extra programs and organizations catering to a minority of students seems to be going the opposite way, no matter how little the additional cost is compared to the tuition. —hankim
  • For example, the "cheap bastard" philosophy. —BrentLaabs
    • As opposed to the, "Hey, it's so fun spending other people's money!" philosophy that the association has. —WilliamLewis

2009-11-13 15:56:52   I'll volunteer to do the vote table. —JeremyKoo

2009-11-14 04:18:02   Well I certainly won't be showing this to anybody.

-You can really see the slate effect working beautifully though, JAM pulled out 1000 voters 2/3rds of which only voted for them, hence their lack of #4 votes. And in the totals: 600 vote drop from 3rd to 4th, 300 vote drop from 5th to 6th (a LEAD candidate dropped out so they only had 5)

-I wonder though...Could people have thought just by looking at her that Lauren (who is an awesome person btw) was in JAM, she got more 4th place votes than anyone.

-As many people hate Abrham as love me

-FUN FACT: I won 20% of the rankings! (they just happen to be 10th,11th,and 12th)

-I may not be the most hated but I'm certainly the least relevant.

1 DH 2 MO 3 MO 4 LC 5 LM 6 LC 7 JO 8 JO 9 JO 0 RG -Victory!!! 11 RG -Victory!!! 12 RG -Victory!!! 13 ACR 14 NS 15 CA

As you can clearly see in some strange and undesirable world I actual won (Jonathan Ogata tied me however, lessening my sense of triumph).


  • Hmm, well, diving deeper into the number, your mean preference of 7.312 was in fact closest to the possible median of 8, and your median preference was 6th (with Jonathan Ogata). So in that sense, you were the least relevant candidate. This election may also show the importance of being the first name on a slate, with the J and A in JAM getting elected in order, though there may be other confounding factors. I imagine the voting website simply randomizes the names for each ballot called up, so there shouldn't be a particular bias towards any end of the alphabet absent a name-based slate. —JeremyKoo
    • Levi was also the first independent listed on the wiki, I doubt that it had much effect, but its the closest thing independents have to a slate ordering —GreatRyan