ASUC Elections - They Could Be Worse
The city of Oakland informs us that not all of the professionals are very good at running elctions either.
Former U.S. Rep. Ron Dellums has pulled an outright victory in the Oakland mayor’s race, according to unofficial final results from the Alameda County Registrar of Voters.
Unofficial results? Sounds familiar.
Acting registrar Dave Macdonald released the unofficial final count Friday night, showing Dellums avoiding a runoff with City Councilman Ignacio De La Fuente by a mere 155 votes.
The tally showed 41,992 votes, or 50.18 percent for Dellums, compared to De La Fuente’s 27,607 votes or 32.99 percent of the ballots counted.
Dellums only needed a simple majority to avoid a runoff in November.
Dellums campaign manager, Andre Spearman, however was cautiously optimistic and refused to declare victory.
“I’m glad the election has some sort of conclusion, that it’s leaning one way or another,'’ said Spearman said. “(The 50.18 percent) seems like a good number, and the acting registrar said that it’s pretty much final, so that’s exciting.”
Elections officials spent the past ten days counting ballots in the race. Macdonald said it will take 28 days before the vote is certified. He also said there were some outstanding ballots that remain to be counted. Those ballots, which were set aside because they had errors or damage, are not enough to change the result, Macdonald said…
Election workers counted around the clock some days, and Macdonald instructed them to separate and try to count Oakland ballots first.
Volunteers from both Dellums and De La Fuente’s campaigns — as well as members of the county grand jury — kept close watch on the ballot counting. County officials, aware that they were being observed by lawyers from both campaigns, made the count as open to the public as possible.
Gosh, legal intrigue, unofficial counts, hand-counted votes… just remember folks, while ASUC Elections clearly could be better, they also could clearly be worse.
It sounds like Oakland has been very methodical and careful in coutning. All elections in the “real world” have spoiled and provisional ballots, and take 28 days or so to certify.
The Oakland race will still be settled well before the month and a half to two months it’s taking to settle the ASUC election.
The ASUC election hasn’t been handled horribly, but I certainly don’t think the Oakland election has been handled worse.
Hand-counting ballots is not some horrible thing.
Comment by Jim Fung — June 18, 2006 @ 11:18 pm
Nothing you’re saying about the Oakland race makes me think the election has been handled badly.
All elections in the real world take several weeks to certify.
Oakland is being very methodical and careful in its counting, and that’s a good thing.
Comment by Jim Fung — June 18, 2006 @ 11:19 pm
Oops, sorry about the double post, I thought my comment hadn’t gone through.
Comment by Jim Fung — June 18, 2006 @ 11:20 pm
wiener!
the only issue in the oakland race is whether there will or will not be a runoff, not the actual “winner”. dellums pulled 50% plus or minus. his closest competitor, ignacio delasshole, pulled 30% or so. the other horse in the race, nancy nadel is considered close to dellums and is a progressive, and she got most of the rest.
1) the count was verified - no runoff. 2) and at the same time, even if dellums had only pulled 49.9% ignacio’s only real political option was to concede the race to avoid the runoff embarassment… 3) which he finally did.
this is hardly some kind of a florida redux or asuc fiasco. you need to read more carefully.
Comment by mano — June 19, 2006 @ 9:39 am
don’t forget about massive electoral fraud by the dellums crowd, and racist attempts to disenfranchise hispanic voters.
Comment by chet (CEO) — June 19, 2006 @ 10:08 am
sure, chet, sure. its all part of the liberal media conspiracy. in conjunction with the freemasons. and the reverse vampires.
Comment by mano — June 19, 2006 @ 11:13 am
Did you actually just call Chet by name, and not “feeding tube”?
This is a breakthrough.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — June 19, 2006 @ 12:03 pm
Obviously mano hates Hispanics. They’re too conservative for him.
Comment by Anonymous — June 19, 2006 @ 12:56 pm
yes, obviously. i mean, just look at spain and latin america, with all the conservative governments they have elected in recent years… its just a conservative’s wet dream.
Comment by mano — June 19, 2006 @ 2:40 pm
For all you SLOW people in CalStuff land, I think Mano’s last comment can be considered sarcasm.
Thank you.
Comment by haha — June 19, 2006 @ 3:30 pm
haha-
thanks, man. what would the slow people do without your timely clarifications?
mano- correct me if I am wrong, the topic involved Hispanic-Americans. so what’s your point again?
Comment by alum03 — June 19, 2006 @ 3:38 pm
Andy:
before you leave, could you repost those two pictures of the girls from berkeley that were in playboy?
Comment by chet (CEO) — June 19, 2006 @ 4:08 pm
chet: send me an e-mail and I’ll send you the pictures
Comment by Andy R. — June 19, 2006 @ 6:01 pm
Hmmm …. I have 1 point to offer …. “Hispanics” or Latinos are in fact not conservative. There are 3 communities in the United States who have consistently voted democratic (60% or more of the voters vote democrat in the last several national elections.) AND yes, Latinos are 1 of those 3 groups (the other 2 are the African American and Jewish communities). That’s not necessarily saying MUCH given the state of the democratic party, but, it does disspell this sudden claim that the Latino community is conservative.
THATS RIGHT FOLKS, even George W. singing the National Anthem in Spanish can’t sway Latinos to the dark side. …
Comment by BCR's Former Worst Enemy — June 19, 2006 @ 7:18 pm
Uh you are way off for a few reasons. 1) conservative =/= Republican. Most minorities are conservative Democrats.
GWB is not conservative
Comment by Anonymity — June 19, 2006 @ 9:24 pm
Latinos voted 44% Bush.
Comment by Anonymity — June 19, 2006 @ 9:24 pm
anon: remind me, what was your point again? what exactly does this mythical, monolithic bloc of “conservatives”, and in particular “conservative hispanic-americans” agree on? besides, apparently, the fact that ignacio delafuckface is the bees knees? sources would be nice.
Comment by mano — June 20, 2006 @ 12:37 am
mano, my point is that using facts about Hispanics in Spain and Latin America in your argument when the discussion is about Hispanics in the US is poor logic. I agree with you that Hispanics are not a monolithic group and you should not assume that Hispanics in Latin America vote the same way as their counterparts in the US.
Comment by alum03 — June 20, 2006 @ 7:00 am
er, care to remind everyone where these “hispanics in the US” came from? care to remind everyone why we call them “hispanic” americans and not, say, “african americans”? and not, say, “irish americans”? talk about poor logic. if you are going to talk ethnicity, lets talk ethnicity.
no, hispanics dont vote the same way in the US as they do in latin america. they also, get this, dont have the same voting options in the US that they do in latin america. they cant elect hugo chavez (not that “they” would) president of the US. the political environment in spain, cuba, the us, mexico… all radically different. so people vote differently, even when they share the same values.
but, even assuming that hispanics in the US are a special, separate group, and that it is meaningful to speak of them as “american hispanics”, there is another issue:
in the us, realistically, both parties and corporate america in general have recently come to the understanding that they do not effectively “speak to” the growing “hispanic” segment of the american population, and are taking steps to remedy this. thus, to claim that hispanics in the US have this or that political allegiance, is a bit premature. a great many _issues_ that are most meaningful or relevant to “hispanic” people (such as immigration reform, labor and the usual social issues relevant to working class people) have not carved out solid niches in the “conservative-liberal” american political spectrum, nor on the “democrat-republican” (whats the fuckign difference, really) spectrum.
people who consider themselves poltically aware these days would also do well to notice that there is a fair degree of turmoil in the political landscape these days, with folks like bush taking the side of dubai ports world in the ports debate, and dems playing the populist exclusionary side… or corporations taking the pro-migrant side of the immigration debate… or conservatives dividing into neo-conservative and paleo-conservative movements that hate each others guts… and the concomitant splits in social conservatism / polticial-economic conservatism… yielding shit like people who are “socially liberal” but “economically conservative” and then people who are “socially conservative” but “economically liberal”, like, sorta lou dobbs.
with all that going on, tossing around stupid labels like “(american) hispanics R conservative” is pretty fucking meaningless, and basically shows that the originator of the comment is an ass.
Comment by mano — June 20, 2006 @ 9:05 am
also, alum, note that my comment #17 was not directed to you.
Comment by mano — June 20, 2006 @ 9:08 am
mano, thanks for the clarification. Next time we talk about African-Americans, we should bring up examples that involve people from Ghana and Togo. I actually agree with most of what you wrote, except it had nothing to do with my original comment.
Comment by alum03 — June 20, 2006 @ 9:45 am
Geez, what would we do if Mano didn’t stay around here after graduation and educate all of us? Are we not happy? After all, he has decided to continue sponging off of his parents and not work just so he can point out how stupid we are. And he does it without any support and knowing that mostly everyone, even the progressive community, thinks he’s a jerk and for all his hot air there isn’t one person on this earth that has been persuaded to change their opinions after listening to his rants.
Keep up the good work, Mano! The Petty B gave up when he realized he was futile, but Mano will outlast him.
Comment by Cantor — June 20, 2006 @ 12:17 pm
Petty B never gave up. He got banned. He’s still hammering away at RIL, last I checked.
I’ve changed some opinions based on mano’s rants.
Comment by Beetle — June 20, 2006 @ 1:28 pm
alum03: your original comment was that the opinions of american hispanics as a demographic groups are different than that of non-american hispanics. i agreed.
however, it seems that you would want to determine what aspect of those opinions are “american” (indistinguishable from those of the rest of america) and which are “hispanic”. voting 44% for bush, for example, is not too different from “american” society in general.
if the cultural element is supposed to be important, as we seem to agree, then yes, it is important to consider the culture that a person comes from. you are being too simplistic in ignoring what makes hispanic-americans “hispanic”, if not their links to other countries. and african-americans are a unique demographic, so your use of them as a counter example, while bitingly sarcastic, doesnt extend to other groups.
anyway, you jumped into someone else’s attack on me by claiming that hispanics are “conservative” and thus, that i hate them. part of my reply is directed at them, not at you.
Comment by mano — June 20, 2006 @ 1:35 pm
Yes, petit used to be simply meanspirited, xenophobic, and slightly mad. Reading RIL now is sad, as we see him falling into delusions. The man should probably seek therapy.
Comment by Donald — June 20, 2006 @ 2:50 pm
I dont think PB is still banned.
Comment by Ben N. — June 20, 2006 @ 2:57 pm
conservative =/= voting republican.
Comment by Anonymous — June 20, 2006 @ 3:21 pm
Anonymous, please do feel free to tell us what “conservative ==”.
Comment by mano — June 20, 2006 @ 3:25 pm
conservative == saving the environment, and gasoline, you fool. liberal == enjoying hummers with arnold. i’ll let you figure that one out yourself.
Comment by big cal fan — June 20, 2006 @ 3:36 pm
Chris, I thought I told you to stop playing on the computer and start sending out resumes. Your daddy and I can’t sponsor your communist rvolution forever.
Comment by Mrs. Cantor — June 20, 2006 @ 3:39 pm
conservative == states rights over federal government
Comment by Anonymous — June 20, 2006 @ 3:46 pm
Alum03 … your comment regarding African Americans is ignorant and not related to Latinos. The reason is as follows: The vast majority of African Americans are descendants from slavery. Thus African Americans have been living in the United States since before the United States was an independent country. Due to the savage nature of slavery (kidnapping, middle passage, etc.) African Americans lost ties to their home lands. The last 500 years have served to further sever the ties between African Americans and Africa. However, many Latinos (even though they ar enot a monolithic people) are much more connected to their previous home. For starters, the migration is much more recent (for many) than the 500 years that seperates African Americans and Africa. Secondly, Latinos came to, and continue to come to, the United States under different circumstances (i.e. no kidnapping). t hirdly, most latinos come from the western hemisphere, thus making communication between family members and friends much easier, and thus maintaining relationships between countries. FINALLY, African Americans have no idea about the voting practices in Ghana, because most have never been to Ghana, nor have family from Ghana. However, many Latinos are still involved in the politics/major happenings in their family’s nation (i.e. see mexican-Americans rooting for Mexico in the World Cup)!!!!
Comment by haha — June 22, 2006 @ 9:10 pm
I totally agree with the previous comment. Why the h#ll do hispanics qualify for affirmative action, they chose to come to this country???
Comment by commodore anonymous — June 22, 2006 @ 9:55 pm
er, commodore retard, are you totally unfamiliar with united states history? do the words “manifest destiny” ring a bell? the us fought a war with mexico (its called, oddly enough, the us-mexican war). maybe being conquered/colonized into a nation is your definition of “choice” but it is not a standard definition.
thats why this sentiment: “we didnt cross the border, the border crossed us” is so strong in the Chicano/Mexican/Mexican-American communities.
Comment by mano — June 23, 2006 @ 9:43 am
that’s a load of crap mano. what percentage of hispanics in the US are descended from people living in Arizona/California/Texas/New Mexico/Nevada before 1846, and what percentage are descended from people who voluntarily moved north and entered the US after 1848?
You know very well that the strong majority of hispanics fall into the second group. they chose to enter the US (usually illegally), they don’t get affirmative action. QED.
Comment by staff sergeant anonymous — June 23, 2006 @ 10:41 am
this whole thing about “the border crossed us” only applies to people who were living in what is now the US before the Mexican War. It’s totally irrelevent in regards to illegal immigrants and braceros and anyone else who came to America after 1848. MALDEF knows that, and they’re a bunch of duplicitous lying scum bags.
Comment by staff sergeant anonymous — June 23, 2006 @ 10:44 am
my point wasn’t that Latinos should not qualify for Affirmative Action, it was that African Americans and Latinos cannot be considered one and the same … particularly when looking at “ties to home countries.” AND THE MAIN REASON FOR THAT IS THE GREAT HISTORY OF THE US
Comment by Anonymous — June 26, 2006 @ 8:10 pm
BLACK POWER! Reject lily white programs like Affirmative Action, welfare (the death of the black community), integration. We cannot compete against whites at their level until we improve ourselves as a community.
Comment by BP — June 26, 2006 @ 9:25 pm
ASIAN PRIDE
Comment by AP — June 26, 2006 @ 9:30 pm