Saturday, December 16, 2006

Supervisor of Elections: Brian Aungst (Q&A)

TR: Most people know you as a senator, committee chairman, or party leader. What's it like currently holding high office in a non-partisan capacity?

Brian Aungst: It’s great to be serving as the Supervisor of Elections. One of the best aspects of the job was chairing the 700 Codes Revision Committee over the summer with a bi-partisan group of student leaders. We worked very hard to bring the codes up to date and heard a lot of great suggestions for ways to improve how we conduct elections. It is very gratifying to not have to worry about the partisan politics and be able to work with people across the political spectrum to ensure we have successful and accountable elections in SG.

My involvement in Senate was by far the most rewarding experience of my undergrad career. I was elected in my first semester on campus and went on to serve a full two years. I left Senate 2½ years ago to give some other students a chance to serve and to focus on my last year of undergrad.

After starting law school here last year I was open to getting involved again, but purely in a non-partisan public servant capacity. After serving as an Elections Commissioner in the spring I was asked to consider serving as Supervisor. I am by nature a political junkie and love elections so I jumped at the opportunity. I also was attracted by the challenges the job entails. It has been one of the most criticized positions in SG over the last few years, especially since the inception of secured-site voting. I wanted to take up the task of restoring students trust in their SG to be able to run its own elections. This fall was a great success and we are working hard to ensure another smooth election in the spring.

TR: Please tell us about elections staff, what roles they hold in the running of the election, and how many members of your Fall staff will be present for the upcoming Spring elections.

Brian Aungst: I was fortunate to have a tremendous group of students volunteer to serve as Assistant Supervisors in the fall. In all, 11 students stepped up and took on the massive responsibility of coordinating and executing one of the biggest student run elections in the country. Some of the Assistants had experience from the spring, but more than half were first semester freshman looking to get involved. The Assistants helped distribute and re-collect over 80 voting booths at 21 polling locations, worked three days in the qualifying room before the elections, helped replenish poll workers ballots and other supplies, and pretty much served as all around trouble shooters on election day. I hope all of them come back for the spring. Having said that I hope anyone interested in helping with the elections would fill out an application and join the team. There is no limit to how many Assistant Supervisors I have and I don't turn anyone away who wants to get involved and help out.

TR: In your opinion and citing from both the good & the bad, how did secured-online-voting fare in the past Fall-elections?

Brian Aungst: In my personal opinion as someone who was totally uninvolved with the process, secured-site voting was implemented by the Senate in an effort to compromise between paper ballots and true online voting. It has its upsides and downsides just like the two other systems, but I feel its record from fall 2005 and spring 2006 speaks for itself. It is very susceptible to technical errors. Apparently, a poll worker kicked one of the power cords and shutdown South West Rec for over 2 hours last year before anyone could figure out what was going wrong. I personally dislike the fact that many of the computers are not in insular voting booths. I felt very uncomfortable voting at the law school because there were many candidates running from that constituency and everyone could see the screen as I marked my ballot. I wholeheartedly believe in the right to an absolute, no questions asked secret ballot. It is the only way a true representation of who the electorate wants to serve them can be gauged. The IT staff in SG assures me that after the last two elections we could run a flawless secured-site election, but it is my decision and I like the privacy and accountability of paper ballots. After what has happened in the 13th congressional district in Sarasota I think my concerns have been validated. In case of a recount I would much prefer to have the individual ballots which can be hand counted and scrutinized than to simply have to rely on what a computer tells me the total was. Again, this is simply my opinion. It is very possible the next Supervisor will feel differently.

TR: You've made mention that you feel uneasy being the one to decide which voting method will be used for the upcoming elections. Why?

Brian Aungst: I am not uneasy with having to decide which system to use. It was a decision I took exceptionally seriously and spent a great deal of time researching and reflecting upon. Having said that, I don’t know any other government where the Supervisor of Elections has that much power. Think about it, Supervisors of Elections are elected in Florida and they still can’t decide which system to use. The County Commissioners decide which voting method to use and they have to either choose optical-scan paper ballots or touch-screen voting as proscribed by the Florida Department of State. When I was in Senate there were no choices for the Supervisor to make other than where to put the polling locations. The Senate adopted secured-site voting in the summer of '05 as a political maneuver and the students inserted true online voting in the spring election. The incongruence in the manner in which these additions were made to the Elections Code has left the un-elected Supervisor with more power and responsibility than the position was intended to entail. The Supervisor’s job is to ensure the secrecy, accuracy, and integrity of the elections. It is a position that should have very few discretionary choices, particularly ones that involve hot-button political issues.

TR: Why do you suppose the issue of internet-voting has become such a partisan issue? Hypothetically, what if anything (in your personal and realistic opinion) do you think would happen to what is known as the "Greek/FBK vote" and to the "Indie vote" if internet voting came to fruition?

Brian Aungst: As a non-partisan official who has been out of the political process for three years I have no opinion on its potential impact on campus politics. My only concern is how it would affect the fundamental rights of the students to have an equal chance to participate in the election and have their votes tabulated and weighted equally.

TR: Although you have made it clear that you are appointed-not-elected and that winning over students is not as important as doing your job correctly, did you have any reservations when choosing scan paper ballots over internet voting, being that this was mandated by the student body or again, were you solely concerned with executing your job as precisely as possible? Please expound.

Brian Aungst: One reason I agreed to take the position was because I knew I would devote a tremendous amount of time and energy weighing this decision. One of my friends asked me “why would you ever want that job?“ I wanted the decision on which voting system to utilize to be made with due consideration. Last year we used Secured-Site voting in the fall and spring without giving any thought to whether we should instead use paper ballots. Even after the so-called “Digital Disaster“ in the fall we just went right back to Secured-Site as if it was the only choice. After giving a lot of consideration to the opinions of SG officials and regular students I felt the only way I could accomplish my primary job of running efficient and accountable elections was to choose optical-scan paper ballots. There is absolutely no protocol or procedure for the Supervisor to choose a voting system in the SG Statutes or our Constitution. I relied on the appropriate SG law and determined in my opinion the only way we could implement online voting would be unconstitutionally violable of students Equal Protection rights under the 14th Amendment and also in violation of the State of Florida’s Fourth Amendment. If students really want online voting to be the only option they should pass a constitutional amendment instead of an initiative, or pass an initiative that eliminates any other options of right now, for better or worse, the choice is mine. I considered my options prudently and arrived at the decision I know was in the best interest of the students, regardless if everyone agrees with me.

TR: Will the decision of the courts have any impact on your office? Essentially you still decide which option to use, correct? And, what do you think was SBP Boyles' reasoning in even sending this to the courts? Escape-strategy, a symbolic gesture of good faith to the Opposition?

Brian Aungst: The decision of the Court still has not been handed down so I am not quite sure how it will affect the spring elections. No questions were raised by the Court in regards to paper ballots. As of right now my intention is to use optical scan paper ballots again, but to also utilize swipe card identification at the polls. Essentially it will be a combination of paper ballots and secured-site online voting. Voters will swipe their Gator One IDs to sign in at the polls and then be handed an optical-scan paper ballot. This eliminates any possibility of double voting. If the Court rules online or secured-site voting unconstitutional, then those voting systems would become unavailable for me and future Supervisors to utilize. My feeling is they will either rule that voting systems are a discretionary political decision of the Senate and the Supervisor and decline to find any unconstitutional, or they will find true internet online voting unconstitutional.

TR: If conditions drastically changed and you were ordered by SBP Boyles to permit internet voting, would you then still stand by your convictions and respectively stand by your decision? President Boyles remains an active player in a political world, whereas you are non-partisan.

To be more clear, does the SBP have any input in how you carry out your work in any way, shape, or form?

Brian Aungst: This is an interesting separation of powers question from a legal perspective, but it has little relevance to the real world. President Boyles appointed me after an extensive interview process. He appointed me because he wanted the Supervisor to chair a bi-partisan committee to re-write the 700 Codes. As a former Judiciary Committee Chairman, Elections Commissioner, and a law student, I think he felt I would approach this responsibility with the proper knowledge and leadership to achieve the best result for the students. When I met with him for the first time after my confirmation, he laid out his expectations of me very clearly. He told me he expected me to thoroughly research each voting system and come back with a well developed and logical reason why I arrived at my decision. I defended my choice in front of the Alligator editorial board, the Senate, and the Supreme Court in an hour long power-point presentation. The result was the highest voter turnout in a fall election, and an election with no legitimate problems. We had more polling locations than ever before to overcome the perceived loss of convenience of secured-site voting and we have every ballot that was cast in storage for anyone interested to inspect and verify the results. I am the first Supervisor to serve a full term since Ali Blye in 2004-2005 and I believe President Boyles is satisfied with my performance. He has offered me many criticisms and suggestions from the fall election and that is partially why we are switching to electronic sign-in for the spring. He is also very concerned about student’s convenient access to the polls.

TR: Any parting words, links, and/or files?

Brian Aungst: I would just like to thank you for the opportunity to publicly address everyone and ask anyone who is interested, to apply to be an Assistant Supervisor of Elections. I would also like to add a few links:

-We have the highest voter turnout in terms of percentage of students and raw number of voters than any other school in the SEC. Click Here

-Also of note, the University of Wisconsin-Madison (a 40,000 student institution) recently utilized online voting to a disastrous result. They had to cancel their online elections twice and then revert to the tried and true paper ballots. Also, most schools purporting to have online voting actually use a form of secured-site voting (like FSU) Link #1 , Link #2 , Link #3

Finally, there has been a mixed result in implementing online voting, most schools that do so do not see a verifiable increase in voter turnout. Link

Thank you all very much.
I appreciate the opportunity,
Brian Aungst
Supervisor of Elections

Email Supervisor Aungst


Anonymous said...

this shit was so dull...

Christian Duque said...

I found it quite interesting. :)

Anonymous said...

This was not dull. Whoever thinks that is ignorant. In the years that I've been at UF, this is the first time I've seen arguments truly backed up with law, logic, statistics and common sense. No one in the past has ever provided such intense findings...and even more remarkable, Aungst gave us a national comparison study with links to other universities. Last time I checked, Aungst doesn't get paid for this position nor does he get an office. And for him to put so much energy into this is unprecedented. He defines what an ideal public servant should be. Thank you for all your hard work, Aungst!

Anonymous said...

This was the same research done by the Senate cmmte over the summer of 05. Its not like Augnst was reinventing the wheel. Additionally, many of his conclusions were wrong in the hour long presentation he gave to senate. He directly stated that paper ballots would "cost less" than other systems. To be clear, he was referring to dollars not some other metric. This is absolutely incorrect as secured site voting built in a nearly $50,000 surplus in the election budget and could have gone back to other programs organizations or Reserves. This was a disengenous ploy to sell his proposal to a senate that didn't know any better. This of course brings up the problem of a lack of recidividism in the senate but alas...

Overall Cmmsr. Augnst should be given credit for his effort as he brought up some good points about supervisor autonomy, good luck getting the senate to take responsibility now that they have abdicated it. And for the sake of all that is holy I'm not certain I would want the senate deciding each semester which system was their current cup of tea. Perhaps you provide greater oversight and accountability with another body like the election commission, but there you are just adding more unelected bodies. Perhaps the cmms becomes insulated where you have appointees from a different president with no connection to the current admin. Either way Augnst offered some insightful points on his job.

Lastly, and this is a misnomer that has been perpetuated by the partisan (like the alligator) and the ignorant (like this blog). UF students didn't "mandate" online voting last spring. The initiative was a rather simple first step. All it did was make online voting from home an option on the table. The 05 cmmte and summer senate rejected this proposal for several sound reasons, not the least of which being the Supes. 14th amendment analysis. As I recall, the senate was most concerened with voter privacy at that time. Had those who supported the Spring initiative (ie Susan/Unite et al) really wanted a lasting change they would have rightly made it the only voting system or eliminating paper balloting altogether. This would have changed teh debate all together. (can you imagine the quotes? "They want to take away your vote!") Thats why SWAMP didn't swing at the low pitch to mobilize their voters against it and Unite even lent supporters to gathar signatures hoping it would rub off on their campaign. (After all Unite's candidate for Pres disagreed with the proposal in principle and was already on record as such, a problem for them later and probably stupid move all together. The fact that fmr elements of progress still held any sway probably forced this)

Augnst's arguments against secured site don't hold water because his arguement focused not on the fundamental system of secured site but rather the implementation of it by past supervisors...people in his job... who fucked up administering it. Felt uncomfortable at the Law school? Well then Brian someone should DO THEIR FUCKING JOB and put up privacy sheilds. hmmm who does that fall to? Thats right the people who were in his job. This isnt Augnst fault but another pattern of his not oh quite being upfront. (Which unless again you know the score...slips right by) Hell I can put up all the flashy powerpoint presentations I want. Have some links, regurgitate some research and call me brilliant. His analysis may have been conscientious but it was not honest.

Heres the point...and congrats if you've made it this far...

You can't argue against secured site voting by saying it wasnt implemented right. The question is...can it be implemented right? Is there anything preventing it from being implemented correctly? The answer is NO.

Augnst can answer this question because the only thing preventing secured site online voting is his effort and expertise. So past Supervisors FUCKED UP it does not logically follow that Augnst will also FUCK UP.

Anonymous said...

Ha I just read my post.

The question is...can it be implemented right? Is there anything preventing it from being implemented correctly? The answer is NO.

Hmmm that was clear. I believe what I meant to say was that secured site online voting can be implemented corretly and there is nothing preventing this.

Thats the problem with soapboxes...they fall right through.

Anonymous said...

interesting late comment on the previous post

Anonymous said...

to the soapbox're all bark but no bite. see if you can do a better job. get off your blogging ass and get out there and apply to be the next supervisor of elections. i'll believe pigs fly when i see them. i see none so far, just unfounded myths....

Anonymous said...

none of this is interesting! give us JA.

Soapbox Rambler said...

I like that...

Dude seriously. "You're all bark but no bite" That is some weak shit. Try to respond to the arguements I've raised.

I'm going to make some inferences here but if you're point is... why dont I do it (that is run the elections)... well thats irrelevant. Its not my job. Stop trying to change the subject.

My points were:
1. Aungst repeated research, this does not make him a saint.
2. Aungst lied to the senate about cost.
3. Aungst perceptively noticed that the person in his job should not have the power to determine which voting system we will use if they don't have the competence to put up privacy screens.
4. The voters did not "demand" online voting last Spring.
5. online voting is probably unconstitutional and was rejected with good reason by the senate.
6. The senate did this on principle not political calculation as Aungst suggests. (This is probably the most debatable if you want to take a swipe...look I'm making it easier on you so I don't have to put up with your tired cliches.)
7. Oh yeah...the supervisor of elections should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. (ie do their DAMN job correctly)

Alright there the SR condensed version. Have at it.

Soapbox Rambler said...

I've thought about it and Aungst made another good point. He is the first consistent Supervisor of elections in awhile. Dan Maland and Bubble butt were the supervisors during the secured site "test run" Isnt like SG to do a test run on actual elections. ? ha. anyways so the point is... secured site never had a chance if it was being implemented by part time incompetants. I would think we would want at least full time incompetants. And I think Aungst is just our guy. A full time incompetant with a plan. He's a guys guy what with that soul patch under his chin. He just the type of guy who wouldn't be a stooge to Blue Key interests. He doesn't even want to be in Blue key. wait...whats that you say...oh he is a key..and oh...he was handpicked by the Boyles Administration to roll back any strides in the area of voting. Well anyways heres to you BA.

(sorry... ignore the BA bashing I actually think he could do secured site well if he applied himself, I just couldn't resist the soul patch comment)

So... the pt for all you SR fans is

1. With inconsistent implementation from 2 seperate supervisors SS voting didn't have a fair shot.

Soapbox Rambler said...

which I guess is really just a 7a Arguement.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Soapbox Rambler:
From a woman's perspective, you need to get laid...bad. I'm not philanthropic enough to do that. And PS -- I think Brian's "soul patch" is sexy.

Anonymous said...

Man whoever you are you have no life. You must be Jared Hernandez because no other loser has such a hard on for secured site voting. It was an ill-concieved plan contrived by Hernandez to dupe the students into thinking he supported true online voting before his presidential run. Now he's pissed becuase his system proved to be a TOTAL FAILURE. It is prone to technical malfunctions and needs back up paper ballots to run properly anyway. The best part was the same people who created SS tunred around and disputed the election results becuase it was such a bad an unaccountable system

Soapbox Rambler said...

I think its sexy 2. Don't jump 2 conclusions. And yes...I do need to get laid. So if you know of any1 philanthropic...

But my sex life aside. Respond to the arguments.

Soapbox Rambler said...

Nope. Try again. I pointed out that is was it was a stupid idea for Hernandez to support the effort when he ran. And if he has a hard on for SS that could be interesting...

Soapbox Rambler said...

Mr. Wrong said:

"It is prone to technical malfunctions and needs back up paper ballots to run properly anyway."

Now this is the first interesting thing said. So why don't we back secured site up with a paper readout that doesn't cost as much as the balloting?

And yes it was rather pathetic that Unite protested the elections. By doing that they further poisoned people against SS.

Anonymous said...

UF General Counsel will not allow the release of any such information saying it is against the Firpa Act. Angst has nothing to do with that. In fact he supported Clouston effort to get the list released after the fall election. Don't forget that SS took an exceptionally long time for results becuae they had to count all the provisional paper ballots by hand and make sure they matched up with the voter rolls. SS is a flawed system its benefits (conveinence) far outweigh its costs (verifiable results, technical malfunctions, longer waiting times to vote, etc)

Anonymous said...

Soap Box Rambler I bet Aungst would kick your ass in a game of chess, a debate, or a street fight. Why don't you have the balls to stand by your opinions with your identity like he did. Maybe we could flame you then anonymously.

Soapbox Rambler said...

You missed my point. I've never met Aungst. I'm sure he is a nice fellow. His reply was well thought out. I just disagreed with him and thought I would provoke some debate. I really could care less about his soul patch silly. Besides flaming is something I need no help with.

Firpa? I think that is what I will name BA's soul patch. Firpa. Its so cute.

Sorry I'm bad. I will stick to the points and stop with the silliness.


Christian Duque said...

Not sure what a flaming is? Sounds kinda Gay (in the chessy sense).

Brian is a big boy, TR is a big boy too. Blogging w/o hateful trolls wouldn't be blogging.

Say whatever you want here, if you decide to correct your ways b/c you recognize you were wrong or what you say/said was wrong, then cool. But don't ever curb yourself or what you gotta say b/c of fear.

Don't ever fear a beating. You get an icepack, you get better, you walk around town and tell people you duked it out with a street-gang to save an old lady from getting car-jacked, if you re-tell the story with enough class and alcohol is present, you just might get laid in the process.

So have fun and only watch your mouth if your conscience tells you to, otherwise, keep being a hateful troll :).

hateful troll said...

soapbox rambler you suck.

Anonymous said...

The comments about getting laid and the kisses sign off make me suspect that our soapbox rambler is Cullin. I know she is in DC but it wouldnt suprise me to find out she reads this stuff.

And she was known for having a hard-on for the 700 codes.

Anonymous said...

You cut in line soulpatch
- Nelson Munks

Anonymous said...

Soap Box Rambler you appear to be incorrect on all accounts. BA Brian Aungst does not have a soul patch. A soul patch is a patch of facial hair below the lower lip (ala Howie Mandel and Bruce Springsteen). As you can see by his pictre Angust's lower chin area is clean shaven.

Instead, Aungst sports what is commonly known as a goatee which is a type of beard (ala Jamie Foxx).

Christian Duque said...

Well let me be the one to say how shocked I am. I've brought TR readers the one man closest to all the voting action and here we are talking about what kind of facial hair he sports. Honestly, y'all can talk about whatever you want, but I'm surprised not to see the Pedro's, the Gavin's, the Nikki's on here engaging Brian.

No one has asked BRIAN anything, you've spoken about him but not to him. It's a shame b/c I would have loved to have read just one exchange between Brian Aungst & Tommy Jardon.

I remain supportive of the internet voting as an option one day (but not today). Quite frankly it's still too risky and that system Brian described, where "everyone could see how he voted," that right there should be banned. I would never voted under those types of conditions.

I remain an Indie, loyal for life to the cause, however, the integrity of the ballot is key. Online, internet voting will not be the GDI-panacea. We won with Access and won boldy w/o online voting, but it took several blocs and an unusual set of circumstances.

I still think a guy like Sam Green coupled with Indies that actually had any kind of foresight could have authored a substantial campaign, adding Valle or Morales to Veep and a Kevin Bacon to treasurer, something like that, or having put Neslon for pres, with Green V.p., and valle or morales for treasurer.

Oh well. I happen to agree with many of Brian's p9ints, initially I was gungho for internet voting but only because I wanted to topple FBK, I suspect in my blood I will always wanna beat the mainstream kids (electorally-speaking), but only because to me we're like opposing teams on a football field, I wouldn't want to win by breaking the rules or having more teammates on my side, I don't think online voting is safe insofar as the integrity of the ballot and I think any talk of cost, convenience, or the advent or sophistication of current technologies are moot issues when presented in contrast to the integrity of the ballot and the essence of the democratic process.

Anonymous said...

I vote for Fei Long (Peace Be With Him)

Anonymous said...

here's a question for Brian: Are you single?

Anonymous said...

Why woudl those people possibly engage him here? Aren't they senators? Don't they have a duty to ask in Senate?

Christian Duque said...

Yes, you are correct.
But, the SOE is here.
A good senator is a leader everywhere, not just in chambers and this issue seems to be quite hot, it's amazing how none of the advocates of internet voting have been able to muster so much as one post. I'm just saying that's rather troubling is all.

Anonymous said...

SG is lucky to have someone as intelligent and hardworking as Aungst to run the elections. Its always better when the headlines are about the parties and not the election itself. Good pick John. Boyles should get credit for making the right choice and righting the elections ship.

Anonymous said...

Christian, why on earth are you going to interview JA, i mean you should do more interviews with current SG people.

Anonymous said...

Yeah Seriously. 7,000+ words. That'll take up the whole page and nobody will read the whole thing, I guess it might be good since it's over the break and not much SG news is going on. Anymore news on presidential contenders? We all know Mos is the FBK candidate, but what about the indies? Will Weiss run or Green? If they do will there be a break off indie party ala Progress who tries to stick with the grassroots?

Christian Duque said...

I can't speak for the Indies. Truth be told, the Indie leadership keeps me as much in the dark as their mainstream counterparts. What little information I get, I get from friends of the blog and from others that hope to gain by leaking certain things that will damage their competition and help them advance, so really, I'm no position to speak for the Indies.

However, they have been told on countless occasions what to do. If Roberts & Jardon ignored me & PG when Voice was fresh off its campaign and in the I/P/V Coalition Fall '05 then you can bet your top dollar they won't so much as wink at my suggestions in 2007. No, unless they run a Nelson or Green for the top spot they're done. Running Kathy Valle against is Ryan Moseley is suicide.

Running Nelson vs. Moseley is one badass nearly impossible hill to climb but it's better than suicide ala Jim Jones (Kool Aid Style On The Set). Nelson won't run, yes there is the gay issue, but fuck that, he's the only guy that could stand a chance against Moseley.

Running with the GDI's would hurt Weiss, whom I think could still run as a Greek candidate and force the Greeks and A.A. community to split.

If anything was learned from this past election it's this. There are enough Greek votes to benefit 1-2 candidates, in fact Nina defeated Action and PANTS and even this allowed for Armand to win sans run-off. My point?

Why on Earth would Weiss run to Action and lose his house and all the Greek support he could garner as a Greek rogue still within the system. If in fact Weiss is out of FBK consideration, he could easily become the John McCain of the Greeks, still mainstream loyal just not Moseley loyal and force his way to a run-off.

Only Nelson, Bacon, and by default Green at either Pres, or Veep could save the Indies. They claim I don't know everyone's name anymore, but bottom line is, those are the names they need to be looking at. But the Indies are lost, watch them run Kathy for pres and lose every single seat, the LS ones included.

I'm sorry, but the GDI's have a group of kids that could potentially rock the establishment boat. I've told Jardon to consider a run, pushed on Nelson, pushed on Baker, pushed on Grant, pushed on Morales, yet NONE of these names ever get mentioned, only these obscure crossovers and transplants get to run, so let 'em run their turncoats and let 'em lose, they deserve it.

As far as JA goes, he has a lot of cross-era appeal and he's my SG idol. Without JA the CD you know in SG the asshole that just didn't know when to shut the fuck up, may never have been. :)

Anonymous said...

Mose will win. Weiss is out will not run. No opposistion. (credible)

Christian Duque said...

And that's my point EXACTLY. The Indies must run a real Indie, b/c at this point they won't be able to pull a Unite '06 in '07 b/c the losing mainstream contender won't run with them. One of the anon made a very good point in some thread, he/she said: "Pedro Allende would rather piss on a GDI's grave than run w/ them."

Now I din't cite that cuz of Peter, rather I cited it b/c a guy like Weiss would be making a huge mistake by running with an Action type party, similarly so the Indies would be further destroying their own cause.

What the Indies need is to back to their roots. Pick a real GDI, no more club nights, no more bigger/badder ad campaigns than the mainstream kids, they need to run low cost - high intensity, they need to reach out to the average students. This having been said they need to risk losing Asian & Hispanic support and go for the African Americans. Boasting of having a growing Asian bloc and the Hispanic bloc did nothing for Dennis, nothing for Jared, candidate X should garner Indie support and go for BSU/NPHC backing and make it clear that they are FIRST on the list.

Now they in turn will want to see a real A.A. candidate, whose at A.A. first and whatever else second. Impact had it right, only had Michelle been for pres. and dennis for re-election they would have destroyed Joe, think about it.

Unite's choice of Siler may have been a quality pick for hoopla, but to imply he represented the community over say a Diane, Whitney, or Elda was totally moronic. Oh well.

Anonymous said...


The party's over. Its time to move on man.

Anonymous said...

This is playing out exaclty like Ignite. Ignite wins in Spring 02 in a spririted race, dominates the fall election and then Kyle Jones (Sig Ep, Treasurer ring a bell?) is elected under the Ignite banner in spring 03 against token opposition. I'll bet Mose even keeps the Swamp name and colors and everything.

Hate to do this but whose the Jamal Access type that will break this whole thing up next year. Maybe Green over Reilly in an Access like revolt in 08?

Anonymous said...

Now that Weiss folded it looks like Aungst won't have a chance to set the record for spring voter turnout.

Christian Duque said...

When asked how he'd respond if hypothetically, conditions were to change drastically and Boyles were to ask him to allow internet voting, the SOE replied "This is an interesting separation of powers question from a legal perspective" amongst other things.

That same scenario with all due respect to Brian and other SOE's, if YOU were the SOE what would you do, what do you think he would do?

I would ignore the order or request or what have you, BUT, would that be grounds for my possible termination? Opinions?

Last but not least, would it even be ETHICAL for the SBP to push for the option he favors most on his appointed, senate-approved SOE?

Anonymous said...

Christian, I don't think the A.A. community could be split. Word on the 3rd floor is that they are all together and they have an impressive base of people running the show on all fronts.

Anonymous said...

Ha Mose should NOT keep SWAMP name at all. SWAMP has been pathetic this year. If anything he should go back to GATOR remember a party that actually got things accomplished...

Seriously this administration has been horrible. Absolutely horrible. They have had unchecked power and accomplished little to nothing.

Mose had to literally go out on his own to accomplish something.

Senate has produced nothing of note and the executive has been the biggest joke in the last 5 years easy.

Anonymous said...

We want Argento, We want Argento!

Anonymous said...

The problem with Weiss was that he never had to work to get where he is. He was slated in an easy district, got tapped on house legacy, and moved into senate leadership because they had no one else. John aside, other presidents worked to get into office.

Moseley has a clean record, is exremely likable and has gotten more done than the rest of the admin. I don't understand why indies wouldn't like him. I'm under the impression that many do.

Christian Duque said...

Intersting points. However when's the last time there was a single party Spring election? I personally don't recall of any recently.

After the shortcomings of Impact (call it Ngin's 'honesty not to make deals' or his 'belligerence on not getting real') to Unite's desperate measures in buying out a rival party on the pages of the Alligator, to Action losing to Nina (a an independent candidate), to then possibly folding to sort of looks like the Indie machine slowly curling up dying.

On the other hand, if the Indie's gave Moseley their support, at best his supporters would thank Jardon & Co. for sparing them the headache of having to campaign, but that's about it. If the Indies, in addition to getting routinely spanked by the mainstream party, decided to not even try this upcoming Spring, then that would be that. No senate seats, no appointments, no nothing.

I'm so glad I've long graduated.

Anonymous said...

The decision came down on Fri. Online voting is unconstitutional.

Anonymous said...

Brian Aungst is a bad ass mother shut yo mouth!