Menu CATEGORIES

Connect with us

CATEGORIES Menu
All Articles

The People Click

The results of ESC’s virtual election are in, and the winner is…online voting. In contrast to last week’s abysmal turnout at the CCSC polls, over half of SEAS undergrads participated in this year’s contest (well, barely…exactly 50.9% voted). And that’s without the ability to directly choose SEAS’ highest leaders!

Of course, the above figure is an average: participation dropped steadily as students got older, from 77.5% of freshmen to 31.6% of seniors. SEAS grad students, though, took the cake – only 1.3% of them bothered to log on to help choose the school’s University Senator.

Full results for the ESC’s democratically-chosen positions below…

Academic Affairs Representative

Michael Fu

278

Samantha Wilner

343

No Response

87

Total

708

Alumni Affairs and Professional Development Representative

Shanita Nicholas

125

Joanne Rispoli

211

James Tsai

264

No Response

108

Total

708

 

Student Services Representative

Patti Lin

284

Peter Valeiras

333

No Response

91

Total

708

 

CCSC Liaison

Daniel Gundrum

231

Ken Yearwood

379

No Response

98

Total

708

 

GSSC Liaison

Whitney Green

574

No Response

134

Total Respondents

708

 

SGA Liaison

Rajat Roy

567

No Response

141

Total

708

 

University Senator

Amit Bedi

315

Esther Zuckerman

295

No Reponse

112

Total*

722

 

Class of 2008 – President

Eash Cumarasamy

145

No Response

24

Total

169

 

Class of 2008 – Vice President

Shreyans Khemka

147

No Response

22

Total

169

 

Class of 2008 – Class Representatives

Jessica Aspis

124

Amy Lin

133

 

Class of 2009 – President

Warren Reed

151

No Response

24

Total

175

 

Class of 2009 – Vice President

Erin Svokos

147

No Response

28

Total

175

 

Class of 2009 – Class Representatives

Samantha John

140

Lauren Minches

126

 

Class of 2010 – President

Heather Lee

214

No Response

31

Total

245

 

Class of 2010 -Vice President

Lili Gu

205

No Response

40

Total

245

 

Class of 2010 – Class Representatives

Gunnar Aasen

198

Kelly Chen

186

*Includes Grad Students

Write a comment

Your email address will not be published.

 

11 Comments

  • 2010 says:

    @2010 was SO CLOSE TO 80

  • just shows you says:

    @just shows you don’t need no e-board elections to get a good turnout!

  • wow says:

    @wow and none of the class council’s were opposed, i’m pretty impressed with ESC

    1. Erf says:

      @Erf Don’t like it? Run against them.

  • come on says:

    @come on Rounding with sig figs–> 80%!

    Great job, though, 2010! :)

    1. actually says:

      @actually rounding with sig figs would be 78% as everything is to 2 digits, at a minimum.

      you’re not a good engineer.

  • On a related note, says:

    @On a related note, this week the Philolexian Society will be debating Resolved: Student Government is Incredibly Lame.
    Thursday, 8:30pm, Wien Lounge

  • hellllllo? says:

    @hellllllo? Well….. 50.9% is more impressive than 30something percent when you look at it by proportions… but by sheer numbers, CCSC’s 1500 voters is larger than about 700 ESC voeters. So, while proportional turnout was higher, it is easier to get a higher percentage when you’re working with less people to begin with.

    Plus, all of Dan Okin’s emails out to all of us probably shows he is trying to make us look more democratic by saying “look, we have more voters therefore we don’t need contested elections.” Plus, he was bribing the freshmen class council with a big party to get them to get people to vote. It looks like this is a scam to get BWOG and ESC critics to stop bugging them; but, BWOG, don’t be fooled by these schemes!

    1. bwog says:

      @bwog is still pretty snarky about the lack of democracy in the ESC:
      “And that’s without the ability to directly choose SEAS’ highest leaders!”
      “Full results for the ESC’s democratically-chosen positions below… ”

      note the emphasis.

  • DHI says:

    @DHI Clearly the difference is that it’s a lot easier to vote online than to walk to specific places and vote.

  • elections says:

    @elections Stop making excuses by saying that SEAS bribed people in order to get a higher voter turn out. It comes down to the fact that SEAS students can vote in their rooms and don’t have to walk to Lerner. Also, Dan Okin did not bribe the First Year class. He made a deal with the First Year class council that if they could get 80% of their class to vote he would give them a party. He knew it wouldn’t happen. The First Years then had to do the work in bribing people. Also, the best candidates in this election did not win. This is the problem with school-wide elections. It comes down to a popularity contest instead of voting for the person most qualified. ESC realizes this, so E-board elections are done internally to ensure that only the best, most qualified students have the highest positions.

  • Have Your Say

    What should Bwog's new tagline be?

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...

    Recent Comments

    Tessa was supportive of the black lives matter movement and was against injustice. I hope she haunts your b*tch azz (read more)
    Racist Messages In FIJI GroupMe Surface, Involved Members Asked To Disaffiliate
    June 1, 2020
    Stop pretending like you think the joke was too far. It wasn’t. Don’t let Bwog and all of these fascist (read more)
    Racist Messages In FIJI GroupMe Surface, Involved Members Asked To Disaffiliate
    June 1, 2020
    The green commenter literally stated that they have made various "jokes about sexual assault and other f*** up s***" and (read more)
    Racist Messages In FIJI GroupMe Surface, Involved Members Asked To Disaffiliate
    June 1, 2020
    It is a well-known fact that FIJI has harbored rapists in their fraternity, including one who has assaulted multiple women (read more)
    Racist Messages In FIJI GroupMe Surface, Involved Members Asked To Disaffiliate
    June 1, 2020

    Comment Policy

    The purpose of Bwog’s comment section is to facilitate honest and open discussion between members of the Columbia community. We encourage commenters to take advantage of—without abusing—the opportunity to engage in anonymous critical dialogue with other community members. A comment may be moderated if it contains:
    • A slur—defined as a pejorative derogatory phrase—based on ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, ability, or spiritual belief
    • Hate speech
    • Unauthorized use of a person’s identity
    • Personal information about an individual
    • Baseless personal attacks on specific individuals
    • Spam or self-promotion
    • Copyright infringement
    • Libel