Daily Forum: My opinions

To begin with, this forum was an odd mixture of formal and casual. Several of the candidates stepped up their game from the ECC forum (I'm looking at the jacket, shirt, slacks combo on Chris Teeny, and the neat tie and hair on Eric Shellan) but a few others went the other direction, dressing down for this event (Evelyn, Kyle Rapinan, and Jonathan Yan being key examples). The room the forum was held in was chock full very quickly, if a bit later than planned. The Daily's Editorial Board had a lengthy list of questions, and they managed the candidates and the speaking time well. Like in the ECC forum, the Directors went first, though FAA and Ops were excluded because they are running unopposed. (I hope that the Daily will not simply endorse those two candidates, despite not hearing them at the forum, unless the Daily did receive some sort of Q&A time or form from those two positions.)

Something to note, was that for the Director Positions, the One Campus candidate always sat to Stage Right placing them as the first candidate to receive questions and give their opening and closing statements. It looked like an obvious tactic to plant themselves in the memories of the audience, except that when we came to the Vice President and President, the One Campus candidates were farther down the line, if not at the very end. Did something go wrong, or was this planned at all? I'm not sure anymore, but it is something to note.

EDIT: Apparently I remembered incorrectly, and only half of the Directorships had One Campus candidates speak first.

To begin... Community Relations:

Pasha was notably absent from this forum. I am told he had a class obligation, but submitted answers to the Daily's board before hand. Part of being a student leader is being a student, so we'll have to forgive him this absence.

Strengths on display tonight... well, Tunny put out at least two very solid ideas that I think should be followed up on as soon as possible: incorporating ASUW into Transfer Tuesdays and appointing more Associate Directors of Community Relations. The first idea is an excellent method of reaching out to students who often have excellent leadership experience coming from their Community College, but who rarely hear about ASUW. The second idea is actually quite similar to an idea I've proposed in late night conversations with other ASUW dinosaurs... it is one of my long standing beliefs that CR should be the head of an office that has a set of volunteers or paid staff who help the Director reach out to as many communities as possible. It's good to see someone else seeing a similar idea. I wouldn't call them "Associate Directors" but that's a minor detail. Yong Cho's answers came across as sincere and heartfelt.

Weaknesses were a bit more abundant. Yong frequently would begin his answer strongly, confidently, and then begin to trail off as he ran out of words. Something he should work on is knowing when, and how, to end an answer. He also needs to develop his ideas. The ones he put forward tonight are things we, as ASUW, already do. We need to see something new from him to feel the urge to support him. Tunny's weaknesses came in two flavors: Major Gaffe and Minor Issue. The minor issue was that he re-used his introduction. Those of us who come to multiple forums notice when you use the same phrasing time and again, and it shows a lack of originality... a lack in the ability to tailor your speech to the audience at hand. This can be fixed with some practice and a bit of coaching. The major gaffe came into play when Tunny was asked why previous CRs had met with the Daily every week and Tunny had not. Tunny launched into an explanation of his personal relationships with Daily staffers, and then said that he "didn't feel like weekly meetings were necessary." That should have been phrased differently to take away from the bluntness of it.

Tunny came out the clearly stronger candidate after this forum.

Diversity Efforts:

Watching this section after the ECC forum was rather odd, honestly. Ben was quieter, more direct. Ty Huynh was much less scripted and had meatier ideas. Kyle didn't really display the substance behind his ideas as well. All three candidates performed differently than they did at the previous forum.

Strengths... Ty Huynh looked much more comfortable, and she sounded that way too. She was able to bring out ideas and plans when asked about her measurable goals as Diversity Efforts. I was impressed.

Weaknesses. One thing that leapt out at me from several of Ben's answers was that he kept saying he is an advocate for things, higher education, diversity, queer people, poly people, etc. but he never really said how he has been an advocate. Right now, I don't know what he's done that makes him an advocate. I want to know, though. Hopefully he'll give some detail at the next forum. Ben also needs to make sure that he answers the question that has been asked. In my notes on his answers, several of them say "didn't really address the Q" or "partially addressed Q." Kyle also ran into this problem a couple of times, where he delivered interesting material and answers, but they didn't address the question he was asked. Another weakness for Kyle was that he was directly asked how he would increase his presence on campus as opposed to the great volume of work he's done off campus, and his answer to that particular question was rambly and weak. He needs to have a stronger answer to that question in particular. Ty Huynh needs to keep working on staying off script... she was much better tonight, and only faltered twice, but they were obvious moments. If she can keep those under control, she'll do very well in the next two forums.

Organizational Relations:

To begin with, Jonathan Yan was less aggressive this time than he was previously. His speech was almost the same, minus the blatant attacks on Rainy Dawg, but it was tamer and less strident. The tone of this portion of the forum was much more peaceful than it was at the ECC forum.

Strengths... Nick impressed me. He came out much more confidently than he did in the previous forum, but managed to support his confidence with his qualifications and ideas. The fact that he has met with incoming and out-going managers and directors is a mark in his favor. Rory was also able to get out some of her ideas and qualifications, showing how she has improved the DJ experience at Rainy Dawg.

Weaknesses... Starting with Nick, I think he didn't really have a major weakness tonight. He is as strong as most previous candidates for the position were (in years past) and presented well tonight. Rory flopped one question in particular. When asked what were some measurable ways she had improved Rainy Dawg in her time as Assistant Manager, Rory only listed one measurable method of improvement. That is a problem. Her improvement was good (I even listed it as a strength), but one improvement is not enough to float that question.

Jonathan Yan's weaknesses were on display tonight. When asked what specific methods he would use to improve the entities' visibility, he pulled out the tried and true "Buzz Marketing," which is an acceptable answer, but then he kept talking in rambling sentences that didn't make much sense. He was discussing potential cross promotion between the entities and said "You know, Bike Shop and the Experimental College can do a really great event..." and then went on to another rambly sentence. I am sure that the Bike Shop and the Experimental College could do a really great event... but what would it be? What would its purpose be? When asked what the biggest challenges facing the four entities are, his answers were generally weak. Visibility, communicating what they do, sustaining themselves? When it came to Rainy Dawg, though, Jonathan almost did a 180 degree turn from his treatment of that entity at the ECC forum. He said that they're really great, that they've got listeners, and they're doing good, but he'd like to shift money from their personnel budget into the website. (This point, I think is another example of how Jonathan doesn't really understand how to fix a problem he sees. How do you "put money into the website"? You either have one of your current employees get paid to fix it or you hire a new employee to do so. I am guessing, just guessing, that Rainy Dawg's Technical Manager's job duties include maintaining the site.)

I think that paragraph is long enough, for now... so let's move on.

Programming Director:

The first thing I want to note about all three candidates is that they all gave very long answers. Brevity is appreciated!

Strengths... Evelyn came into this forum much calmer than she did the ECC forum. That was good to see. Jocelyn presented at least one new idea that should be implemented, whether or not she gets elected. The idea of Quad Fairs next year is excellent. She also showed that she has been thinking ahead and planning for the move to Condon already this year, which shows foresight and good planning. Sam's main strength tonight, I feel, was the breadth of her experience. She listed off a half dozen programs that she has either been involved in or put on herself. That kind of experience would serve well in the role next year.

Weaknesses. Evelyn needs to have details in her answers. When asked what the biggest challenge facing the Programming Director for next year was, Evelyn repeatedly referred to "these groups." What groups? The question didn't address groups at all. Later, when asked for programs that aren't currently under ASUW's supervision the only one she brought up was Home Coming and the Home Coming Rally. She will need to diversify her portfolio of ideas to get back into the race.

I still cannot decide between Sam and Jocelyn over who is the stronger candidate. Both bring significant experience to the table, both have good ideas, and the more I think about it, the less I think either is a bad choice.

Vice President:

Strengths.... Dalia and Sarah both gave strong performances tonight, giving good answers. Dalia walked the stage area, almost as confidently as she did the ECC's stage. Eric was much more comfortable than in the ECC forum and gave much stronger answers than before. He went into detail, described how he would actually perform the duties of the VP, and in general hit the right notes. Shauna also hit a lot of right notes, and presented a lot of good information. All four candidates were good tonight.

Weaknesses... I'm not quite sure, myself, if this should be considered a weakness, but Eric was cracking jokes throughout his time on stage. Talking about appointing "some rando" to a committee, and yet right then also talking about how we need to give and receive respect in the community. It was a mixed message at least. Shauna needs to make sure she thinks her answers through quickly before giving them. In one answer, her second sentence argued against the point of her first sentence, and in that same answer she said "if elected President..." which is a minor gaffe for the VP candidate. One glaring point was Sarah's answer regarding the Ballot Measure question. I'll admit that I didn't even know what the question was referring to, and had to send a series of quick text messages to find out. Once I knew it was the University Agenda proposal, it made more sense... but the question didn't give enough information. That said, Sarah did her best to answer the question and came out OK. She'll want to do some research on that topic ASAP.

I'm not going to label this a strength or a weakness, but Eric used my most recent favorite quote twice. He quoted Justice Scalia's point that politics and democracy take a certain amount of civic courage. Eric gets kudos from me for the quote.

President:

Over all, the five Presidential candidates all made strong showings. Madeleine was much more comfortable tonight than she was at the ECC and it showed. Her answers were cleaner, her posture was less aggressive, and she relaxed enough to make a joke or two. This was definitely a stronger showing for her. Beto apparently decided to follow Eric's example from last week and came in with the rumpled look, his shirt un-buttoned. A general rule to follow is: if you are going to wear a suit to a forum, wear the suit properly. Sloppy suits speak softly. Aside from his suit, Beto's answers were mostly on point and well phrased. I will say that he did not answer the question about what his legislative goals in Olympia are.

Sam and Chris were both comfortable on stage, but were also coming at the whole idea of ASUW and the Presidency from a different angle than the other three candidates. They are the outsiders, and they're both more than competent to do the job. If either gets elected, I expect to see some significant changes in how ASUW operates.

Kyle was very at home at this forum, much like she was at the ECC forum. She gave good solid answers, but did get a bit playful at times. This was shortly after the rather joke-filled VP period, so maybe it made sense. I'm not sure.

Of the five candidates, Madeleine, Beto, and Kyle had some of the hardest questions, and they gave some of the most detailed and thorough answers. I especially liked Madeleine's response to the question about alternative methods of making student voice heard; Kyle's answer regarding controversy with the Daily and the campus community; and Beto's answer regarding increasing SAF and Transportation fees. All three answers were nuanced and had a lot of depth.



As always, if you'd like to take a look at my notes or have an in depth conversation about what I've posted or your opinion on what happened, I'll make time for it.

Daily Forum: expectations

From what I've heard, the Daily Forum will be structured with the Daily's panel asking mostly situational questions. They've sent out a request via facebook for anyone with questions for any of the candidates to send in questions. Here's part of the message they sent out:

This week, the editorial board has decided that in the interest of both time and purpose, the format of our forum will not include an opportunity for audience members to ask questions at the event.

Instead, we are encouraging anybody who has an idea for a question to either facebook-message myself or send an e-mail to opinion@dailyuw.com. Please be sure to specify what position the question(s) is/are targeted towards, and if there is any candidate in particular they are meant for.

We're looking forward to seeing you all there!

-Ivan

So, if you haven't sent in a question yet, hurry up before it's too late! I, personally, sent in a question for each of the candidates/positions (yes, even the unopposed ones).

What I am expecting, and even hoping for, is for the Daily panel to grill the candidates. This is the opportunity to present hard questions and make the candidates think on their feet. Questions should require the candidates to actually think about the role of the position they are running for, the duties that are required, as well as their ambitions for the position.

The candidates who come to this prepared with their ideas ready and an open mind ready for curve balls will outshine their peers and opponents.

I'll be in the audience taking notes again and will put together a summary, like I did at the ECC forum, in case you can't make it yourself, but still want to know what happened, who said what, and as always, what my opinions are about the whole event.

PS: Also, if you're feeling nostalgic for the last time we had multiple tickets running and heated debate, check out this link.

Where's the Funding?

So I know this blog is separate from what I do at work, but I wanted to make sure anyone reading it knew about the event tomorrow evening...

It's called WTF? Where's the Funding? and will be held in the HUB Auditorium at 6:30pm. Frank Chopp, the Speaker of the House, Leslie Goldstein (the Governor's advisor on Higher Education), Margaret Shepherd (UW Lobbyist), Andrew Doughman (student journalist who was in Olympia during the Session) and Mike Bogatay (Executive Director of the Washington Student Association) will be answering any and all questions students care to throw at them.

If you're a candidate, this would be an excellent opportunity to make sure you know what happened in Olympia, and if you're a student at UW this is the place to find out why your lecture hall is now standing room only.

See you all tomorrow!

Fact Check from last night

Hey All,

At last night's forum, there was one issue that called for fact checking. A key point of one of Kyle Fuller's answers was about pushing for a Diversity Requirement for all students. Essentially requiring all students to take a class that teaches them about a culture, like a Women's studies course, or a Chicano studies course. Directly after presenting this idea, Madeleine McKenna spoke, saying that she had had a conversation with Dean Ed Taylor on that very idea, and that he said it was not feasible at this time.

I used to work for the Dean, so I thought it would be an easy thing to check, and it was.

Dean Taylor received my email late last night and responded within half an hour. He agreed that he did say that it was unfeasible at this time, noting that in years past a similar push was made but failed. That failed push did cause the creation of a Diversity Minor though. Dean Taylor goes on to say that he would suggest connecting with other key administrators if this idea is one that ASUW wishes to pursue. He said this might not be the right time or climate, but that it is a worthy concept for ASUW to pursue.

ASUW Elections Forum, hosted by the Student Advisory Board

First thing I will tell you is that the forum was advertised as beginning at 4:30 and ended at 8:45, so there were four hours of candidates giving their spiels to the audience. Several candidates noticed, however, that the vast majority of people in the room were either associated with one campaign or another, or they were an ASUW insider already. I'm one of the latter.

The forum was organized with the Directors presenting in alphabetical order, followed by the VP and the President. Each candidate was allowed to introduce themselves, and then received a prepared question, then there were questions from the crowd. There were quite a few supporters for Team Legacy filling up the Stage Left side of the theater, and the ticket itself entered the theater to Michael Jackson. Definitely an interesting choice. Dr. Sheila Edwards-Lange was sitting in the front row, and she stayed for the entire forum, so many kudos go out to her.

Let's dive in....

Community Relations:

Pasha, from Husky Nation, was the first speaker, and he introduced himself, and his ticket, as wanting to bring back traditions to the campus, to build them up and bring them to the community. His question was how will he make ASUW a real part of every student's life... and his answer was by taking himself, and other BoD members, to events, by facebooking, and reaching out to as many people as possible. It wasn't necessarily the strongest answer, but it wasn't bad.

Yong Cho, on Team Legacy, was the next speaker for CR, and he brought up his roots in Korea and his time in UWLeaders. Yong's question was 'what is the ECC community, and how is it represented in ASUW.' His answer was rather rambly and vague, addressing his experiences in clubs, saying that the ECC IS diversity, and that he wants the clubs to reach out to him (as Director of CR). The way his answer rambled made it very hard to follow, and I'm not sure he really answered the question fully.

Tunny, for One Campus, was clearly the best put together of this group of candidates. His suit was impeccable, his presentation was close to flawless, and he spoke with quite a bit of confidence. Clearly, being the incumbent has given him an edge the others will have to work hard to overcome. His question was about how in the past there has been division between the North of 45th community, the RHSA, the UGC, and other groups, and what would he, as CR, do to change that. His answer left something to be desired. The first portion was mostly buzz words, but ended with a heartfelt note about walking in another person's shoes.

That segued into Tunny being asked that as the current CR, he represents the past, why should anyone expect him to do anything differently than what has been done? Tunny's answer was good, at first. He said that it is impossible to reach every community, but that he has done good work north of 45th, and will continue to work. In the second half of his answer he told the questioner that it was "unreasonable to expect one person to reach out to all communities." I think that was a foot in mouth moment, and definitely something for Tunny to avoid saying in the future. Telling a questioner that their concern is unreasonable is one of the cardinal sins of politics.

The candidates were all asked a few more questions, and their answers were all fine. Some were weaker than others, but no one made anymore large gaffes. Overall, I would say that Tunny looked the most comfortable and prepared to be up there. Yong was slouching in his chair looking bored, and Pasha had a bit of a nervous twitch going with his right foot. Candidates, remember that the audience can see you, even when you're not holding the microphone.

Diversity Efforts:

The three candidates for DE all presented very different personalities and styles of leadership. Ty Huynh was very scripted and on point, a much "cooler" style of DE than has been seen in recent years; whereas Ben was a big personality, involving the crowd and filling the room; and Kyle Rapinan was warm, but quiet.

The first question was "what does SAB mean to you?" which is the perfect question for DE, especially in the ECC Theater. Kyle's response was that SAB is the body that gets things done on campus for the underrepresented communities; it's not well connected to ASUW, but that should be changed. It was an excellent answer, that I feel strikes to the core of what SAB is and does... it's the body that works and fights for change in a much more vocal way than ASUW ever does.

Ben was asked what does Diversity mean to you... and he said that we cannot define diversity for everyone, that diversity changes based on the situation and the people. It was an interesting answer. He added that he would like to bring Diversity to the classroom, to where people are spending their time at UW.

Ty Huynh's question was about her previous experience with underrepresented groups, and how she would promote groups she was unfamiliar with. Her answer left a lot to be desired, honestly. She spoke about her experience with KhSA and the ASU fried rice competition, and then about how she would work to get freshmen trained in safezone techniques... her answer didn't really address the question. It was all good information, but needed much more focus.

One point I would like to bring up is that in about half of his opportunities to speak, Kyle said some variation on "similar to the other candidates..." or "like XXXX said..." That is a very weak method of public speaking, and makes it appear as if you don't have ideas of your own. The rest of Kyle's opportunities were full of excellent ideas and content, but I can't help but remember how many times he lifted up his competition.

I think Kyle's answers had the most substance, Ben had the best connection with the audience, and Ty Huynh was extremely well prepared. All three candidates were good, and I am still undecided as to who I will be voting for.

Faculty and Administrative Affairs:

Jed introduced himself, stated his current position as Senate Chair, and then took questions. His answers were rather rambly at first, winding their way through Jed's thought process, but eventually made a point. His third question was an obvious plant from Eric Shellan, his ticket's VP candidate, asking Jed what he was going to do to improve faculty evaluations. Jed launched into his prepared idea about getting rid of the scantron (bubble) sheets where students rate their professors and the class. He also added an idea or two about having sit down round tables with the prof after the class to discuss how to improve it. An interesting idea that sparked immediate concern.

Directly after that question, a student in the back said that she felt the scantrons were useful because they allowed students to see how other students rated their professors or classes. Jed's reply was rather dismissive and, frankly a bit rude, saying that there were other better ways to do that. Another student then questioned the round table conversation, saying that students who must follow a series of classes could be penalized by the professor, and Jed's answer was again flip to the point of rudeness. A third student then asked Jed if he would take the bubbles away without consulting students at all, because she finds them (and the course catalog) quite useful. It was at that point that Jed finally gave a serious answer saying that this was good input and that he had never heard of someone actually using the catalog (apparently he forgot the questioners just before this one) and that he would take it under consideration.

Yes, Jed is running unopposed, but flip answers will not endear him to any crowd.

Operations:

Sarah is also running unopposed, and she used her introduction to build up her entire ticket. That is the standard tactic for an unopposed candidate, so no harm no foul. Her answers to the questions were well thought out and full of good ideas. She also seemed to own the space much more than most of the other candidates.

Organization Relations:

Jonathan Yan, for One Campus, was the first candidate introduced. He built up his experience as a Marketing and Accounting major as "business experience" and his time as his House's Senator and Tunny's CR Associate Director as ASUW experience, claiming he will have a leg up on other candidates because he knows ASUW already.

Nick Booher, for Team Legacy, gave a rather humble introduction acknowledging that he was a new face because he was campaigning and saying that he wants to become known there. He also laid out the goal of making ASUW accessible to everyone.

Rory Raabe, for Husky Nation, was the last candidate to speak, and her introduction was off beat. She introduced herself as "applying for the position..." and was rather self-deprecating. She did bring up her experience as the current Assistant Manager for Rainy Dawg Radio, and the close relationship she has with the current Org Rel.

All in all, the Org Relations debate was rather negative in tone. Jon Yan began it with his rather aggressive listing of problems he sees. When he was speaking I felt like I was either being yelled at or lectured. His talking points dominated the debate and framed several of the questions, so he was definitely effective, but decidedly unpleasant. When he wasn't speaking, Jon lounged in his chair, arm hooked over the back with an odd smirk. (As I said before, candidates: remember we can still see you!) I would also like to point out that one of Jon's repeated ideas was "buzz marketing" and he described it as producing swag items like pencils with your logo on them and giving them out so students take them home and see them later. I don't know if Jon has noticed, but there are currently hundreds of paper cranes with ExCo's name all over the HUB, there are also pens and stressballs covered in ExCo's logo. I've also seen similar items from Rainy Dawg, the Bike Shop, and OCHA. The entities have been doing Jon's "buzz marketing" for years.

Rory did not present very well, in most of her answers. She seemed flustered, and rightly so as most of the questions and talking points were about the entity she currently helps to lead. She will need to work on how she presents, and show that she can be confident. I will give her kudos for standing up and calling BS on one of Jon's talking points, in which he claimed that Rainy Dawg only has 15 listeners per day. Rory got feisty and stood up for what she knows to be true. Good work there, try to keep that passion in the rest of your speeches.

Nick presented very well, honestly. He has less ASUW experience than either of his competitors, but he framed his ideas well, came off as approachable, and likable. Those are key skills for Org Relations, and he demonstrated them quite well tonight. In his closing speech Nick addressed these points head on, saying that he has a passion to learn, that he wants to learn what these entities do... and that's a very good place to start as Director of Org Relations.

Programming:

This position is one that I still cannot find a good reason to pick one candidate over the others. Evelyn has a lot of real work experience with the work the position does; Sam has similar experience from her time in RHSA in an analogous position; and Jocelyn has definitely proven her ability to put on programs this year.

Between the three, there are really only superficial differences. Jocelyn looked the best prepared and presented with more confidence than either of the others. Sam presented a much different point of reference than her opponents, coming from RHSA. Evelyn's only missteps were how often she said "ummmm" and how rambly she got in some answers. This is an extremely hard call. I'm going to continue watching the forums and campaigning to decide for my personal ballot.

Though, I will say Evelyn needs to remember the same thing I mentioned above... we can still see you when you're not holding the microphone! I'm not sure what was so interesting in the rafters, but Evelyn was staring up there for quite sometime while the other candidates answered questions.

Vice President:

Point blank, Dalia owned the space more than the other candidates. She was comfortable and dynamic in the space. I was impressed. Eric was almost that comfortable, though I did have the urge to go up there and straighten his hair and tighten his tie. Sarah was clearly passionate about the position and wants to make sure that the basics are covered, that the core duties are fulfilled, before the position expands. This contrasts directly with Eric who seems to want to grow the position, almost making it into Government Relations 2.0, or even Co-President. Both are valid directions to take the Vice Presidency into, and I'll be intrigued to see which direction the voters leap. Shauna was also very well put together, though in more casual attire than her competition. Her points were cogent and relevant and full of passion. She seems to be a happy medium between Sarah and Eric.

One rather interesting thing happened during the VP debate. When asked, by Madeleine McKenna the current VP and Presidential candidate, what change she had made to the VP did they think was important and how would it affect their work next year. Dalia, Shauna, and Eric all had very similar answers, but when Sarah answered she started out on the same track as her opponents, but then took it a step further. She said she would take the time that was freed up by the Bylaws change (allowing Committee Chairs to appoint their own volunteers without the VP and the Open Selection Process) to reactive the Governance Committee. The room literally filled with whispers for a moment after Sarah said that. I know what I think about the idea, but I'm damned curious to know why everyone else was whispering.

Lastly, Dalia repeatedly made reference in her speeches to the people "picking the right Board" or voting for the "right candidates." She even asked the room "who do you see yourself in?" When we are sitting in the Ethnic Cultural Theater, at an event hosted by the Student Advisory Board for the Vice Provost of Minority and Diversity Affairs, and there is a ticket that is primarily based in that community, those statements carry a lot of weight.

Almost done folks....

President:

Each of the candidates came out very strong tonight. One glaring flaw I have to mention is that Chris Teeny showed up in jeans and a T-shirt (though his shirt did have the outline of Africa on it). That is beyond being too casual for this kind of event. It's a forum to decide who we, the students, want as our President... the candidates should look like they could be our President.

Of the five candidates onstage, Kyle and Jilberto seemed the most at home and comfortable. They both walked the full length of the stage and interacted with the crowd casually. Sam grew into being that comfortable on the stage, and Madeleine got close by the end of the forum. Chris was getting there too.

Something I like about Chris's thought process on ASUW and the Presidency is that it is so well thought out. He brings in sociological and political science theory and makes it relevant. I was honestly quite impressed. I had to laugh, though, when Chris said that he "became aware of what ASUW was two weeks after joining Senate." I'm not sure how you could be a member of Senate for two weeks but not know what ASUW is... I'll have to ask him some time.

Sam stood by his ideas and his convictions, and I definitely respect that. I thoroughly disagree with his stance on Local Control, but that's a conversation for if he gets elected. Sam's background is definitely different than all of the other candidates, and would make for an interesting shift in ASUW dynamics.

Madeleine was very much the "advocacy" candidate, pushing the projects she has worked on this year and promoting ideas she is working on for next year. She has some solid ideas, some so solid we're also working on them up in OGR... maybe we should connect a bit more.

Like I said before, Kyle was extremely comfortable on the stage. She name checked several people in the audience (myself included) and showed a lot of passion. There were only glimpses of nerves when she lost track of a question or two.

Beto... Beto gave an extremely strong showing tonight. He had ideas, he had charm, and personality. He showed himself to be a top tier candidate, and did it with style.

OK... The recap is over... this is a summary, heavily laden with my opinions. If you disagree, let me know... we'll talk about it. If you want to see my notes, I've got them and I'll show you what I wrote down. I've got some verbatim quotes and I managed to catch almost every question or statement.

Good night and good luck folks. ;)

Instant Runoff Voting

For the last several years, ASUW has run its elections using Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), which is a system in which voters rank as many candidates as they want in their personal order of preference. This system means that unless a candidate gets a clear 50% +1 majority in the first tally of the votes, candidates who come in second or third have a good chance of coming from behind to win.

Traditionally, in ASUW elections, there are dozens of minor write in candidates for President, and few of them receive more than a handful of votes. Those voters sometimes put a mainstream candidate as their second or third choice, allowing their votes to actually influence the election.

In IRV, there are two strategies to win: 1. Come out hard and strong to win in the first round, and 2. Accumulate votes slowly by claiming the second place on your opponents ballots.

Strategy #1 requires a lot of legwork and a lot of effort. It is a very bold strategy and requires a lot of confidence. This strategy means you have to solidify a strong base of support and work to get that 50%+1 vote. If you miss calculate, if your base of #1 votes is not large enough, you'll fail.

Strategy #2 is the more traditional ASUW route, at least in years when there are multiple tickets. A ticket, or candidate, needs to build a solid base that will make sure they survive the first serious rounds, but also need to reach out to the communities that make up the bases for their rivals.

A good plan is to combine the two strategies.

Let's take a look at the tickets we have running this year. I'll list them out and with what I think their largest voter bases are, then we can discuss what I expect, just based on past performance in those communities.

Sam Martin, base: ECC and Senate
Vote Big, base: Christian and Greek houses
Team Legacy, base: ECC and RHSA
Husky Nation, base: ASUW and RHSA
One Campus, base: ASUW and Greek

Based on how active they are, how large their facebook groups are, and their coverage in the Daily, I fully expect One Campus to come out on top in the first rounds of IRV, but probably not enough to win out right. There are five different groups out there trying to get people to vote, so I doubt One Campus, no matter how organized, will be able to claim 50%+1 in the first round.

Based on the size of their tickets and how organized they've been so far, I expect TL and HN to be in second and third. I won't call in which order they'll finish just yet.

If Vote Big is able to tap the support that Dawg Life saw a few years back, they might be able to upset some of this. That year, there were just over 4,000 votes cast, and Dawg Life was able to get more than 50% in one race and was three votes shy of that mark in another race. I'm fairly confident this year's election will bring in more than 4,000 votes, but if Chris and Shauna do their work they could claim one, or both, of the top two spots. If they do not do their work, if they don't get out there and motivate their base, their votes will likely be split between OC and HN the round after they drop.

Sam Martin looks as if he will draw votes away from TL due to the ECC connections, as well as drawing some away from OC because of his Senate connections. Here is where it is tricky... if Sam plays his cards right he'll be either #1 or #2 for all of the ECC voters and many of the Senate voters. If he coordinates his message correctly and plays each crowd correctly at the forums, he could take enough of the undecided voters to leap into the top three.

The race is no where close to being done, and any of the tickets could jump into the top two or three, but it will take a lot of work. The smaller two tickets will need to make sure that their bases are solid but also reach out to as many other groups as possible. The larger tickets, One Campus specifically, will need to make sure that their base voters are content and will actually show up to the vote. The smaller tickets will be doing their best to nip away at their base, taking voters where they are able.

My advice to the small tickets: keep working, you all have a good chance if you plan properly and work hard.

My advice to the large tickets: don't get complacent. The smaller tickets could come from behind and take you.

Activities on the Campaign Trail

So, here we are in the second full week of campaigning, and it's been fairly quiet. One Campus, Husky Nation, Team Legacy, and Vote Big all have t-shirts and buttons all over campus, and two of which have done the large flash mob style filing.

One campus has been the most active so far, with videos and tabling on campus. Generally, as I come to class and work, I don't run into too many tablers or anything, but last week as I drove into work I saw a large group of One Campus volunteers and candidates out tabling at the campus entrance on 17th. While I sat at the red light, I watched dozens of students walk by on the opposite side of the street, apparently avoiding the tablers. I saw one girl cross the street on the same side as the tablers, and she was quickly approached by one, then two, then six of the volunteers and candidates. From inside my car it seemed awkward, but things might have been different in person.

I know that the other campaigns are also building up to tabling and going around speaking with organizations, and I'll be watching their tabling activities as well. If you've seen some tabling and want to share about it, add the comment here. I'll add more as soon as I see more.

Faculty and Administrative Affairs and Operations

Because FAA and Ops are both currently unopposed, I decided to include them in a single post.

The Director of Faculty and Administrative Affairs' job includes attending the Faculty Senate, the Graduate and Professional Student Senate, and working on any/all issues that come up during the year that involve how students relate with the administration or the faculty.

The Director of Operations is one of the most internally focused position in ASUW. Ops' job can often be seen as the lawyer of ASUW. They chair the judicial committee and supervise the Office of Government Relations. They also serve as the parliamentarian for the Board of Directors.

Candidates: FAA: Jed Bradley (One Campus), Ops: Sarah Round (One Campus)

Strengths: Jed is a very strong candidate for FAA due to his time this year as the Chair of the ASUW Student Senate. His time as Chair has required him to interact with the GPSS and the Faculty Senate this year, and he has been on the front end of discussion on all of the issues that came up in ASUW this year.

Sarah's strengths also come from her time in Senate, but she was the Vice Chair, whose duties are often analogous to those of the Director of Operations' duties. She was well prepared for the jobs she will be expected to do as Ops. As Vice Chair, she served as the parliamentarian of Senate and took the issues Senate considered to the Board of Directors and argued for the opinion produced by Senate.

Weaknesses: Sarah and Jed both have one glaring weakness: they are running unopposed. The fact that they are running without opposition means that it will be difficult to get people interested in voting for them. I don't see any real weakness in either of them, as candidates for their position, which could be part of the reason for the dearth of opposition.

Diversity Efforts

The position of Diversity Efforts is honestly one of the hardest contested races this year. There are three very good candidates, and I will be watching the three candidates to see how their positions develop and how they behave on the Campaign trail.

Diversity Efforts' job, on the most basic level, is to coordinate with the ASUW Commission Directors and help bring a wide range of issues to the forefront of discussion in ASUW. Previous Directors have been very active in the Senate bringing forward resolutions and bills, others have focused on their issues at the Board level. There is potential for this position to bring ASUW into the greater Seattle community.

Candidates: Ty Huynh Chhor (Tie-win Chore) (One Campus), Kyle Rapinan (Husky Nation), Ben Lealofi (Team Legacy)

Strengths: Kyle has incredible name recognition, both on campus and off campus. His first year at UW he was very vocal and organized a response to perceived homophobia in the Daily, and received quite a bit of coverage in that same paper. He was also covered in the alternative weekly paper, the Stranger for that same issue, and has recently been mentioned on the Stranger's blog (The Slog) for his work on creating Queer Youth Space on Capitol Hill, a traditionally gay neighborhood that doesn't currently have much in the way of space for those under 21. That name recognition paired with obviously successful community organizing makes him a formidable candidate.

Ben's strengths are his connection to the communities. He is currently serving as the Commission Director for the Pacific Island Student Commission, which means that he has a weekly meeting with the other commission directors and has worked with them to put on events for the other commissions and communities. Ben has also served in the Office of Minority Affairs/Diversity, which put him in a place to work with members of each of the communities the Director of Diversity Efforts would work with.

Ty Huynh has spent this past year working to educate as many people as possible about what is happening within ASUW, the UW, and our communities, as well as what is happening that will affect those communities. During the Legislative Session, she covered several of the key issues on her video blog.

Weaknesses: Ben's weakness is that he cannot point to many specific examples of work he has done to further the interests of any one community. Yes, he has been the Commission Director, and yes he has been involved, but when reading his list of involvement it's full of "member of this" and "participant in that..."

Ty Huynh is similarly weak in that she also can't point to a specific example of something she did that made a difference. She lists a lengthy group of issues she has worked on, but does not say what she actually did to work on them.

Kyle's weakness, I feel, is that he might seem "too off campus." A lot of his activism seems to be aimed off campus, which is the end goal of every student, but we need to see how he will take that off campus experience and put it to work here at the UW.

Programming

The Director of Programming can be an under-utilized position, past Directors have worked diligently in the late summer and over Fall quarter to put together Homecoming events and then allowed their position to simply linger around Board meetings. Recent Programming Directors have taken on other projects, like the Husky Pride Fund, and have been much more active throughout the year.

Candidates: Jocelyn McCurtain (One Campus), Evelyn Jensen (Husky Nation), and Sam Weinstein (Team Legacy).

Current Positions: Evelyn currently serves as the "associate Director" to Kyle Fuller, the current Programming Director. Again, as in Jonathan Yan's case, the job duties seem to be assisting the Director in everything they do.

Sam is the current Residence Hall Student Association Programming Director. As mentioned before, in recent years the RHSA Programming Director has run and been elected as the ASUW Programming Director, possibly due to their sharing a title and very similar job descriptions.

Jocelyn is the current Director of the ASUW's CORE (Committee Organizing Rape Education) and has served as an RA in the past.

Strengths: Sam is a very strong candidate for the position based on the title recognition of being a current programming director. In the voter's guide, she is likely to put the fact that she is currently serving in a very similar role, which will be a cue to the undecided voters that she is competent and qualified. Her list of previous ASUW experience is daunting as well with the numerous committees and roles. Definitely a strong candidate.

Jocelyn is also a very strong candidate based on her experience in CORE. She has put on several large events this year and has proven her ability to plan, promote, and complete such events. As long as she can put that proof in front of the voters, she will be a continuous worry to her opposition.

Evelyn, does seem weak on paper, but does have one clear strength: her time as associate director means she will know the duties and methods of the job. That inside and out knowledge is what generally makes for a smooth transition between Directors.

Weaknesses: Jocelyn... I'm trying to find a weakness for her, but I am not seeing one. She is an excellent candidate.

Evelyn's weakness is obvious, her relative lack of experience. She will need to convince voters that her time as associate director is enough to elect her.

Sam is in the same boat as Jocelyn. Based on the information online, she's an excellent candidate.

I'll be paying attention to this race as the campaign continues to see who shows themselves to be the better candidate.

Sam Martin, for ASUW President

Sam appears to be a true outsider in most senses of the word. The only ASUW involvement I can find on his facebook is that he, at one point, was a member of the Senate Publicity, Outreach and Membership Committee. He seems to be an extremely involved individual, especially at the State level. He has been an incredibly active citizen.

I don't believe I've met Sam yet, but based on his facebook and some googling, he seems to be in a similar mold to Anttimo Bennet; very socially active, very political, and very involved in the local community. Based purely on his list of activities and involvement, he is an incredibly strong candidate for President. He has lead large groups in the past, has worked with administrators and lawmakers, and has worked with various communities on and off campus.

The primary flaw I see currently is in his list of positions. His first position is on tuition, where he claims that it should be in the hands of the Regents. That position is contrary to the positions ASUW has held for the last twenty years, or more, and if Sam wishes to change that long held position he will need to convince all of the returning ASUW members, the advisors, and potentially student governments at other schools. If Sam is elected, this will be the testing ground. Can he bring the rest of ASUW around to his view, or will he switch his position to match the traditional view.

EDIT: After finding his second page, which has significantly more detail, I found that Sam puts forward a few rather bold goals and statements. He says, as I mentioned above, that tuition should be locally controlled; that a mandatory transportation fee would lower the cost of the UPass and prevent parking rates from increasing (he does not flat out say we should have a mandatory fee, but why bring it up unless you support it?); and that he will be making bi-weekly trips to Olympia to "effectively make our voice heard," which makes me worry he does not think I've done my job this year (I am the current student lobbyist, and spent all of Winter Quarter living and working in Olympia to make our voice heard. If Sam is elected, he will need to work with whomever is the student lobbyist next year to coordinate efforts and not split the student voice. If the President and the student lobbyist are both down in Olympia, who should the legislators listen to? Good communication and coordination can prevent that problem, but it has to be good).

Organization Relations

This position is the Board position with which I am most familiar. Its primary role is to assist the four entities/organizations in achieving their goals and missions by relating their needs to the Board of Directors and by providing some oversight to those same entities from the Board level. I've worked under two Directors of Org Relations, and watched a third closely, because of my time working in the Experimental College, the largest of the four entities. The remaining three are Off Campus Housing Affairs, Rainy Dawg Radio, and the ASUW Bike Shop.

Candidates: Rory Raabe (Husky Nation), Jonathan Yan (One Campus), and Nick Booher (Team Legacy).

Current Positions: Rory is currently the Assistant Manager for Rainy Dawg Radio, which means she has had to work closely with the current Director of Org Relations, which means she has a clear leg up in understanding the position and its duties. Her experience at Hollow Earth Radio shows she has a clear passion for the work done by Rainy Dawg, which should translate well into work as Org Relations.

Jonathan is currently serving as Tunny Vann's "associate Director" of Community Relations. The position's duties seem to be assisting the Director in all they do. He is also an ASUW Senator, an IFC representative, and an accounting and marketing major.

Nick currently serves as a supervisor in the Housing and Food Services owned and operated McMahon Hall Nook.

Strengths: Jonathan's strengths include that he has some experience working within the ASUW, both as Tunny's Assoc. Director and as a Senator, and his connections within the Greek community. His majors in accounting and marketing could also be useful.

Nick has experience working within an organization that is primarily student run, so he can relate with the work done by the entities. His previous experiences on campaigns will also be useful during their race for the Board.

Rory is a very strong candidate for this position due to her current position in one of the four entities and the constant contact with the current Director of Org Relations. She knows one of the entities intimately, and has had contact with the current directors of the other entities.

Weaknesses: Nick is weak in that he does not have much demonstrated leadership experience or much experience with ASUW. He will need to show that he can learn the ins and outs of the position while also fulfilling the needs of the entities.

Rory's weakness is that she is a much quieter personality than other campaigners and has an apparently smaller support base (as evidenced by the number of fans on her campaign page). Support can be grown, and with some effort and coaching, a quiet person can come out of their shell.

Jonathan's weakness, as I've made no bones about so far, is that he has precious little experience with the position or duties of Organization Relations. His platform is honestly a very bare bones approach to Organization Relations. He suggests implementing new, and enhancing existing, financial systems, but after speaking with a few people currently serving in the entities, I've not heard he's spoken with any of them about their current systems. It seems quite presumptuous to assume the need to change systems without finding out what the entities think about their own systems. His other positions are mostly fluff. A high def station for Rainy Dawg is not a new idea, nor is using social media and new tech to strengthen the customer relationship... in fact, the Experimental College has been doing so for at least the last three years (to greater or lesser efficacy depending on the current Public Relations person). Were I Jonathan, I would take time to go speak with the current Directors, Assistant Directors, Managers and Assistant Managers in the four entities to find out what their goals and needs are, as well as what they think their challenges are, and then update my platform accordingly.

EDIT: When I say "his other positions are mostly fluff..." I mean the positions on his platform, not other positions he has held in other organizations. I thought that was clear in the context of the sentences around it, but after receiving a question on that point I wanted to clarify.

A fourth, albeit partial, ticket emerges

Chris Teeny and Shauna Stadnik have now thrown their names into the ring for ASUW President and Vice President.

This pair is something to think about. Shauna was at the helm of last year's ASUW elections, as the Elections Administrations Chair, so she knows the rules well and was able to observe one election cycle in depth. Chris presents himself as an open book, and his bio and platform statements read almost like stream of thought. After looking over their facebook pages and their campaign pages, it's fairly obvious that both are fairly conservative Christians and the influence of their faith shows in at least one of Chris's platform statements.

In his Platform, Chris is both specific and vague which is a skill many people do not ever develop. Chris gives three key areas he will work on as President, and then tells you what he will do to improve them. (I am not sure if his ideas would actually improve the ASUW, but that is his intention.) The first section of his platform seems to be saying that Chris wants to narrow the focus of the ASUW and bring it back to the basics. In fact, his third item says he will: "Unify ASUW on fewer goals that have more noticeable improvements in areas of tuition rates, transportation, podcasting classes, among others." The "fewer goals" worries me, honestly. Having spent more than half a decade involved in ASUW, I've seen it swing along the ideologies of the various people in leadership, but ASUW has, for as long as I have been here, operated as a Big Tent where every idea is heard, and if you want to go forward and develop your idea, we'll support it (if it makes sense for students). Hopefully, during the forums, someone will ask Chris to Clarify his point. The second half of Chris's platform are general statements about his views on topics like leadership, Diversity, ASUW Involvement, Safety, etc. In his statements on these topics, Chris seems to veer off into a rather rough comedy routine. The only statement that doesn't contain a joke of some sort is the one on Vision, which is the one that almost directly quotes Old Testament Scripture instead of telling a joke. It's a scripture I've quoted numerous times before, and it's a good concept (theologically or in the secular).

Shauna's platform has three points, in total: reaching out to campus, the HUB relocation/construction, and increasing student voice. These three things are all admirable, and they are all necessary, but only the last relates to the delineated duties of the Vice President. Shauna will need to make sure she focuses in on how exactly she will perform as Vice President, and how she will take these grand ideas and bring them home to the ASUW.

Now, as a ticket, these two will have to work much harder than any of their competition. Vote Big: Teeny & Stadnik is getting off to a much later start than their competition and, on top of the delay, this ticket will have a significant cash disadvantage when compared with the other tickets. Because ASUW elections policy allows each person campaigning to spend a certain amount, based on which position they are running for, the tickets with 6 or 8 members will have almost $2,000 more to play with.

Because Chris and Shauna are so closely tied in with the Christian community on campus, I would not be surprised to see an upwell of support for them, similar to Dawg Life a few years back. That ticket had a full slate, but had weak leadership at the top, and still managed to elect one of their Director candidates. If Chris and Shauna are able to tap into that support, they could be formidable. If, instead, they do not manage to gather enough support, their votes could be a tempting prize for the other campaigns.

In Instant Runoff Voting, the system ASUW uses, voters rank their choices for each position by their preference. If their first choice receives the least votes in their race, then that candidate is eliminated, and the vote goes to that voter's second choice candidate.

With the four [Now five] tickets now running, were I on any of those tickets, I would now be working to not only build my own base, but also working to claim the second place spot the ballots I know I won't be placing first.

Community Relations

Now, my inclination would be to analyze the Candidates for Director of Operations or Facualty and Administrative Affairs, but as those two positions have a single candidate each, I'll save them for last.

Because of that, the first Directorship to be analyzed is the Director of Community Relations. This position's purpose is to reach out to the various community groups (pan-hellenic, Intra-Fraternity Councy, Ethnic Cultural Center, the Residence Hall Student Association, and the ever elusive Commuter Constituency) and help make their issues known to the ASUW at large, perhaps even solving some of their problems. In this role, the CR often works closely with the President to advertise initiatives the ASUW is taking on, with the VP to select volunteers from a broad pool of applicants, and the Director of Programming to bring interesting events to the different communities.

Candidates: Tunny Vann (One Campus), Pasha Kazerouni (Husky Nation), and Yong Cho (Team Legacy).

Current Positions: Tunny is the sitting Director of Community Relations, which is an excellent point in favor of his candidacy for re-election.

Pasha does not hold a current position within the ASUW, but tells me he has been working within his Fraternity on the Miss Greek Charity event, which as the Daily reports, brought in $92,000 for cancer research.

Yong Cho is heavily involved in the Hip Hop Student Association and is Co-President of the east2west production company. He also serves as an ASUW mentor and is part of the UW Leaders program.

Strengths: Pasha's strengths come from two sources, I think. First his recent activity within the Greek Community in the Miss Greek philanthropy event will have put his face out in that community, and the success of the event will lend him some prestige and credibility. Secondly, the fact that he is a new voice to ASUW, not having been involved in other ASUW programs. If addressed correctly, this will be seen as a strength because he is bringing fresh ideas and a more solid connection to the Greek Community.

Yong Cho is an interesting candidate, in my mind, because his residential community is the Residence Halls. It's been three years since a Director of CR came from the dorms, and it might be time for another one. He has also been involved all over the place this year, and will be able to tap different communities than are traditionally brought in to support a candidate for CR.

Tunny has the seat currently, which is a difficult position to assail. Other candidates will have to walk carefully around critiquing the position's recent history or else they will be seen as attacking Tunny. The fact that Tunny is currently in the position means he will be able to demonstrate that not only can he do the job, but he is doing it well. He will also have guaranteed face time with the different communities because he holds the position.

Weaknesses: Yong Cho's weakness might be that he is over committed. He is highly involved in two organizations, and less involved in several others. No one wants to force someone to quit their involvement in their passions to take on a role in student government. He will also suffer from a lack of name recognition in the general student body, but that can be overcome with advertising and face time.

Tunny's strength could turn into his weakness. He has a year on record in the position, and if a student who is paying close attention decided to dig into the Board minutes I am sure they could find something damaging. I say that because, as anyone who has spoken at a Board Meeting knows, what you mean to say, what comes out, and what the person taking minutes writes down are not always the same thing. Taken out of context, the most benign comment could be construed to devastating effect.

Pasha's weakness is mostly along the lines of Yong Cho's weakness: he will need to work on his name recognition outside of the Greek Community. His lack of ASUW experience could also be seen as a weakness, even though I listed it as a strength too. If addressed improperly, if Pasha does not frame it as being a fresh voice, but rather lets another ticket describe him as too new, too inexperienced, his lack of ASUW experience could be a pitfall.

Vice Presidents

Candidates for the office of Vice President: Dalia Amin (Team Legacy), Eric Shellan (One Campus), and Sarah Chow (Husky Nation).

Current Positions: Dalia is the sitting ASUW Director of Diversity Efforts. In that office, Dalia coordinates the Joint Commission Committee and helps the Eight ASUW commissions bring their messages to the rest of campus. She also sits on the ASUW Board of Directors, where she helps bring diversity to the forefront of the ASUW.

Eric currently works in the Office of Government Relations as the Assistant Director. (Full disclosure, I am the current Director of the Office of Government Relations.) Eric's duties involve working on local lobbying efforts, like supporting the UPass and working to get real rental housing reforms, and supporting the Director's efforts in Olympia. Over the past year Eric has planned, or helped plan, several events (large and small) that helped students increase their voice in Olympia.

Sarah has, for the past two years, served as the Administrative Assistant to the Vice President of the ASUW. In that role she has directly observed, and assisted, in the process of selecting volunteers for the association. Her duties also involved a lot of front desk work, and meeting people as they came in to learn about what the ASUW is.

Strengths: Eric's strengths primarily come from two angles. First, his experience in OGR has given him a unique knowledge base among the candidates for VP. His previous experience with political campaigns has definitely helped sharpen his political skills and savvy. Secondly, his personality is very outgoing and exuberant, but restrained when necessary. He has a very strong skillset for political campaigning.

Sarah, at first, appears to be a rather weak candidate. She does not currently hold an elected office and is not overly involved with clubs or organizations on campus. That said, her years working in the ASUW front office as the VP's Administrative Assistant have allowed her to observe ASUW as it lives and breathes. She has watched, and facilitated, the daily grind from within the belly of the beast. Beyond that, Sarah is an extremely nice person who makes an effort to reach out to the people she meets and make them feel as if they were the center of the universe for the duration of their conversation.

Dalia brings a different kind of strength to the table. She is the only candidate for VP that currently sits on the Board, so she will be able to claim a kind of experience none of her competition can claim. Also, Dalia will be able to say that as the Director of Diversity Efforts she interacted daily with members of the most diverse communities the UW has to offer, and that as the Vice President she will be able to reach out to those communities to broaden the base of ASUW volunteers.

Weaknesses: Sarah's weakness is fairly obvious: her relative lack of experience. Sarah will have to convince the voters that she is more than a nice smile and a kind word. She will have to show that she is competent and has the skills to do the job.

Dalia has a similar weakness to Sarah's. She too has limited experience that is relevant to the duties of the Vice President, and she is the youngest of the candidates which will only enhance the image of a lack of experience. Dalia will have to show that she is capable in the general sense, and capable of doing this specific job.

Eric's weaknesses. This is a hard section to write simply because of the working relationship I have with Eric. As a candidate for VP, I think his primary weakness is that his experience base, while strong and deep, is not a good fit for the Vice President's duties. His skills are varied and strong, but they don't translate into finding a wide range of volunteers for the dozens, if not hundreds, of volunteer positions the ASUW holds. His platform, while full of good ideas, seems to focus on issues that are outside the scope of the Vice President. In fact, the only point on his platform that deals with the duties of the VP says that he will work to bring students to the table on University Decision making bodies, and at the State level. The other points on his platform are projects Eric has begun this year. These projects are good things, and the goals Eric lists are things we should fight for, but it appears that the delineated duties of the Vice President are being ignored. The only way to change the first weakness is for Eric to learn new skills. As he grows as an individual, his skillset will also grow. The second half, the lack of focus on the duties of the VP is a simple fix. Eric only has to tweak his platform and refocus a bit.

Presidents

So, today I begin my analysis of the candidates. I'm going to go position by position through the 8 elected officers. We'll start with President, do the Vice President, and then the Directors.

Candidates for the office of President: Kyle Fuller (Husky Nation), Jilberto Soto (Team Legacy), and Madeleine McKenna (One Campus).

Current positions: Kyle is currently serving as the ASUW's Programming Director, and was elected last year on Tim Mensing's ticket. That role requires her to work with administrators within the University and the Alumni Association to put on events like Homecoming and to promote the Husky Pride Scholarship Fund, which increased enough under Kyle's tenure to begin giving out scholarships.

Jilberto currently represents the La Raza commission in the ASUW. La Raza is the chicano student group that focuses on bringing together latino/chicano groups to work toward common goals and help bring their culture to the rest of campus. Part of his role involves weekly meetings with the other commission directors, regular meetings with the chicano or latino RSOs, and interaction with the administration of the Ethnic Cultural Center and the Office of Minority Affairs and Diversity.

Madeleine is this year's ASUW Vice President, also elected on Tim Mensing's ticket last year. The VP's primary duties involve finding willing volunteers for the hundreds of committees that ASUW has a seat on, and making sure those volunteers keep up the good work. Other duties include fulfilling the President's duties when necessary and taking on tasks as they make sense. Madeleine has worked closely with Eric Shellan (her VP candidate, and current Assistant Director in the Office of Government Relations) to find ways to support the UPass system.

Strengths: Jilberto is coming into the race for the Board of Directors with a relatively fresh perspective. He has not been part of the Executive Branch of ASUW and has been insulated from the politics that swirl there. That is not to say there were not political storms among the Commissions, but rather that he is new to the politics of the BoD. This could be a key strength for him due to the national sentiment of dissatisfaction with our elected leaders. If Jilberto is able to tap into that dissatisfaction, he could ride that general feeling into the office.

Madeleine's strengths lie in her name recognition and the association most Americans have with the roles of Vice President and President. Anyone who pays any attention to Washington State Politics knows who Rob McKenna is, and it's a short google away to know that Madeleine is his daughter. Her last name gives her state level name recognition, which could be a very big leg up, if used properly. Secondly, the fact that she is the sitting Vice President means the average person on the UW campus will assume that her current duties are similar to what the President's are, so she would be more prepared to take on the role of President than another candidate.

Kyle's strengths are that she has a rather wide base built into her ticket, that she has worked closely with the Alumni and the Administration (two groups the President must be able to work with), and that she can simultaneously claim the experience of being a sitting Board Member and claim to be bringing fresh new ideas from the community to the executive office.

Weaknesses: Madeleine's weaknesses are relatively small. The name recognition that I listed as a strength could also be a weakness if too many voters conflate her positions with her father's positions. Another weakness is her limited experiences... she was a co-Director of the UW Leaders program, which helped train volunteers, and sitting as the ASUW Vice President, which selects volunteers and helps run the association as a member of the Board of Directors. Those experiences don't always line up with the duties of the President, and Madeleine will have to make the case for why her experiences have prepared her for the position.

Kyle has similar weaknesses to Madeleine, in that she has limited experience to prepare her for the role. Yes, she has worked with the Alumni Association, and she has worked with Administrators in her roles on the Board and in RHSA, but the average voter doesn't know what those roles do or, really, what the President does.

Jilberto has less general name recognition than the other two primary candidates, so he will need to work to get his name out there. Another weakness he will have to overcome is that he is purely an ECC candidate. If he writes his platform and goals with a wide enough scope, and makes sure to remember to speak to the whole campus, that weakness will be easily overcome.

Logos?

Let's talk about logos for a moment here. A good logo visually links all the members of a ticket into a single group and also shows the voters that your ticket has the tech and marketing savvy necessary to run the ASUW.

Let's take a look. Here's the Husky Nation logo.

This logo has complimentary colors, easy to read text, and something that closely ties it to the University of Washington community. It isn't a complex logo, and isn't very ambitious, but it is functional and gets the job done. All in all, it's a pretty good logo.

Now, here's the One Campus logo.

The One Campus logo ties in well with the political marketing zeitgeist. It's a round logo in blue and white, which calls to mind the logos from Barack Obama's campaign and the many imitators from the following campaigns. It is a very modern marketing look and does look professional. All in all, the logo is a very well made piece of campaign material.

EDIT: I would also like to bring up that this logo is very generic. It isn't tied to the UW, this year, or anything in specific. This logo could be for any campaign on any campus. For that matter, it could be used on all three UW campuses by a coalition ticket that is trying to run a united UW student government.

Team Legacy has produced a rather bland logo. Sure, it is brightly colored and gets the message across (Vote Legacy), but there's nothing that particularly ties it to the UW, the ASUW elections, or this year. If Team Legacy's shirts end up being that kelly green color, then their logo will have that tie in, but in general, I do not think this logo was a good choice for the ticket. A way to save the logo now, would be to provide alternative color schemes. The logo itself is basic enough that altering the colors should be easy. If the ticket put the same logo out in the primary colors, a Purple and Gold scheme, and maybe a gray scale scheme, it would allow their fans and supporters to select their own way to show support.

Vote Big's logo obviously reflects that their ticket is just the two of them, Chris and Shauna, but is still very appealing. The solid background with the white outlined characters and the handwritten-style names. It's an appealing logo. That said, it does not tie in to this year or the UW/ASUW, aside from the use of a yellowy-orange that could be taken as "gold." It's a pretty good logo in general, but not an excellent choice for this campaign.

What's in a name?

Team Legacy, One Campus, Husky Nation? These are the names of the three main tickets that I know of, so let's discuss them.

Team Legacy... the name doesn't really appeal to me, and I don't think it says much about the ticket as a whole. If they're my legacy, then they are the people I've trained and taught and they're following my path. The problem is I don't know most of the people on the Team Legacy ticket, and I want my ASUW leadership to lead the way, not follow in my steps. The word "legacy" also has the connotation of getting a position based on who they are, not what they've done. All in all, I would not have chosen this name.

One Campus could be an OK name. It implies a lot of unity, unity that might not actually be there. By using that name the ticket is claiming to speak for everyone, which makes sense as a Board, but as a ticket? It could be seen as arrogance or presumption. Alternatively, the name is easy to remember and rolls off the tongue. It's an OK name until you think about it too much.

Husky Nation is the best name of the lot. It brings to mind the large communities we see in Sports fans and speaks to the community aspect. It does also have some of the connotations that "One Campus" does, in that it could be seen as speaking for the entire campus, or the entire UW community, but less so. EDIT: One should also note that "Husky Nation" is also the name of the fan group for UW Athletics. When you search Facebook, or google, that is more likely to pop up than the ASUW Elections ticket.

The thing that stands out, to me at least, is that while all of the tickets are asking people to "vote TICKET XYZ" the Husky Nation ticket is asking people to "join the Husky Nation," which is a friendlier message. It's asking their supporters to step up and be a part of what the Husky Nation is doing. I am not sure how the other tickets could get the same effect. It doesn't make sense to join your legacy, and if it's one campus you're already a part of it so you don't need to do anything more.

EDIT: At the time of writing, I thought the Ticket "Team Legacy" was called "Your Legacy." My apologies for the mistake.