Of course they are alleging that Vote No violated campaign laws—that’s all these non-organizing ASM folks have left to do after such a humiliating loss!

“Gosselin said the committee is encouraging students who have seen or heard anything regarding campaign violations to come forward.” I saw Vote Yes foot teams tearing down Vote No posters. Isn’t that illegal? I also saw Vote Yes fliers in the 6th floor Soc Sci men’s room, <100 feet from a “polling station.”

Gosselin’s cause lost the election legit, so in rolls the back-up plan: Discredit the results by invoking technicalities! …That your people also violated. Sigh.

Best possible news, now the far-left can’t get a President to lord over us and moderates will keep the chair.

Perhaps if ASM hadn’t been so busy taking pictures and was able to spend their time instead making their cause relevant to students they wouldn’t have to attempt to de-legitimize their own election….again. This calls to mind the botched Union vote of yore.

The election was online, so it seems that any electronic device with access to Internet would constitute a polling place. It seems ludicrous to assume that individuals campaigning for either side successfully made it through campus without encountering an iPhone, Blackberry, or laptop within 100 feet.

It would certainly be unfortunate if students would have to wait longer for ASM to gracefully acknowledge their loss. It seems it will be even longer before ASM starts paying attention to the interests of the students they represent - who seem to have voiced their opinion quite clearly with their 15% turnout.

3:22am … thanks for the valuable insight Patrick McEwan…

Also, Isn’t it ironic that the person that is claiming that the Vote No coalition broke certain rules also happens to be the person that had to step down from SSFC after bribing certain GSSF groups to vote yes? I find it kind of hilarious honestly. Maybe the pro-Constitution side should just accept that they lost… by a huge margin.

AMEN!

So, I take it the Herald news department was glad to see it… um… FAIL? That headline is more than a touch unprofessional. Funny, sure, but it belongs in an editorial cartoon.

You’re going to try to prevent people from posting signs withing 100 feet of a computer? What if I walk past with my laptop…. did they just do something wrong? Grow some balls Gosselin.

I’m shocked — SHOCKED!!! — that the proponents of the constitution are claiming the opponents cheated. They’ve never ever tried before to invalidate the results of a vote they lost!

Oh, wait — they did that with the Union South initiative too. More than once. And they kept doing it until they finally won.

Good riddance.

I don’t understand how a group with that much power, with as much money, sway, access etc. can suck so horrendously at organizing.

I got a very clear message from the vote no people: Decentralize the government, diffuse the power, enable the grassroots and avoid the bureaucracy.

I have never seen such a pathetic attempt at generating buzz or viability for an issue. Not only did you never explain to me why voting Yes would be in my best interest, but, quite frankly, I cannot think of a time when you have ever explained to me a single beneficial thing that you do with my seg fees!

If I would have been asked yesterday to abolish ASM, even without an alternative in place, I probably would have done it.

Tip for moving forward: Prove that you are relevant.

Students from all different backgrounds…hardly!! This was just a bunch of far left nutjobs that used scare tactics and lies to get students to vote no. They might have had an argumet if they had proposed an alternative constitution, but they didn’t, leaving them advocating for the status quo. Given that and their campaign promise that they will bring better reform from within, every time asm screws up from here on out, it is the vote no people who will be to blame. I guess its time to step up and reform from within like u campaigned on.

Mr. Gosselin, some campaign violations I know of:

I found Vote Yes email on my polling station’s screen the day of the election (It’s weird, I think 41,000 other students might have received a similar email on the screen of their polling station). I also found a Facebook Vote Yes group on that same screen later that day. There was also a website (www.badgerherald.com) that had campaign propaganda printed throughout it on the screen of my polling station.

It seems that Vote Yes/Badger Herald’s campaigning efforts were not 100 feet from my keyboard and mouse. I have screenshots, Mr. Gosselin, that you might be interested in later. I think my polling station was in Gordon Commons, too, at the time.

Mr. Gosselin, I urge you to check into Vote Yes violating election rules. Or perhaps check into ASM’s defunct election campaigning rules. Embarrassing, ASM.

Fuck off, ASM. Fuck off.

Seeing a large, boldfaced FAIL. underneath Badger Herald’s header is a hilarious testament to their failure to affect student opinion.

As a member of ASM (and someone who voted yes on the constitution) I am embarrassed by the comments of Kurt Gosselin, and I need to stress that his opinions do not represent the totality of ASM. Regardless of whether certain election provisions where violated, something ASM’s SEC is in charge of enforcing, almost 2/3 of the student body voted no. Crying about small issues is not going to change the fact that Gosselin’s vote yes campaign was poorly run and that the constitution had serious problems that were not addressed—despite the urging of several council members at the December 10th meeting.

I say congratulations to the vote no coalition for a well run campaign, and I also say thank you to the students of Madison for making their voices heard and voting in force.

We have a student government at UW?

WTF the Chair of the SEC crying over the No vote? How can she rule on possible election violations if she so clearly favored one side.

“This was just a bunch of far left nutjobs that used scare tactics and lies to get students to vote no.” Fail. The Vote No Coalition had the endorsement of non-partisan groups, like the Campus Women’s Center, and conservative groups like CFACT.

How can you possibly say that the CWC is not a far left group in the sense that basically every single person in it is PD or votes PD? CFACT is a maybe.

I think the title of this article is slightly rude

The Chair of the SEC was neutral, she is not crying, even though it looks like it. The caption is wrong.

@5:16: Non-partisanship is what happens when you take a neutral stance and have the discipline to actually pull it off.

I think the title of this article is appropriate for this topic. I think this is the Herald’s coy way of saying that the student body failed without alienating “61%” of it’s readers. The new constitution would have been a step forward. If anyone had taken the time to learn about the constitution in any number of ways:
1. attend a listening session 2. look at the asm website www.asm.wisc.edu 3. read or contribute to the constitutional committee’s blog 4. glance at Monday’s Herald spread highlighting the differences between the current and proposed constitutions 5. take literally half a second to read any Vote Yes flyer)

…they would know that this was ASM’s constructive effort to improve student government. How many of you complain that student government doesn’t do anything, or that ASM’s red tape makes action almost impossible? The restructuring of the executive branch and committee structure would have streamlined the bureaucracy and made ASM more efficient so they could DO MORE FOR STUDENTS. The new constitution, which has an extensive checks and balances system (though not as extensive as the current one, which renders some high level members almost powerless), would allow for less red tape and more effective relationships between ASM committees and student council.

I am not a member of the constitutional committee, but I know that that body of dedicated, thoughtful individuals pored over this document diligently and asked for student feedback for NINE MONTHS. This fail is a slap in the face to them....and ultimately to the entire student body, who will not benefit from an improved student government structure. 

Judging from the messages I heard the VoteNo coalition and its activist latch-ons spreading, most students on this campus are in the dark about what was really going on. Vote No-ers were broadcasting rumors that the new constitution would cut funding for the campus women's center (Chynna Haas' home base), which is a fallacy. Anyone who would say that clearly does not understand how ASM funding works. It made me sick to see self-righteous activists who were part of the Vote No coalition advocating for something they were evidently uninformed about. I'm disappointed that VoteNo used exaggerated and inaccurate propaganda in their campaign.

To the disenchanted student body: this was your chance to improve your student government. FAIL.

Kurt Gosselin may be nit-picky, but I think it’s important to acknowledge that VoteNo blatantly didn’t play by the rules.

“Vote No-ers were broadcasting rumors that the new constitution would cut funding for the campus women’s center (Chynna Haas’ home base), which is a fallacy.” You’re in an opposite camp from Chynna, but that doesn’t make her a dumbass. This statement is either an epic straw man or an intentional mistruth.

9:31: “intentional mistruth”? Who are you? All I’m saying is that VoteNo oversimplified their message (which, I concede, unfortunately seems to be part of the nature of most elections). They oversimplified to the extent that their main message was that funding for GSSF groups would be cut and important services to students—e.g. the ones that that Campus Women’s Center provides—would be eliminated. If you did any of the things that I listed in my previous post (“1:11am”) you would notice that the issues in the proposed constitution don’t have anything to do with funding. Budgets for those groups would be protected…and VoteNo chose not to believe that.

It seems to me that Chynna, Kyle & co. exploited their activist friends’ collective sympathy for “the little guy” [in this case, the VoteNo coalition]. They duped their friends into believing that they were doing good, when the opposite seems to be true. A lot of students complain about ASM, and when they tried to do something about it (i.e. craft a new constitution for nine months), several groups (more than half of which Chynna Haas is an active member of) blocked their efforts.

Thanks VoteNo. You affirmed the “power of the far left” on this campus and effectively hindered the progress of the body that is designed to advocate for student interests. Are you really that pleased with the current structure of ASM?

In Take Back ASM’s mass email, VoteNo “The problem with our student government is not its structure, but its current leadership.” Did you know that Chynna Haas and Kyle Szarzinski are members of ASM?

@11:28: Ever read the ASM constitution? You’re in ASM, I’m in ASM, students who don’t know ASM exists are “members” of ASM.

@11:28: See Jason Smathers’ Comedy of Errors article.

Kurt’s hypothetical plan: “Instead of GSSF groups forming around a basic service or need, ASM could decide certain services needed on campus � tutoring, diversity education, etc. � and contract with groups to provide such a service. So instead of student groups starting based on needs they want to provide, ASM would decide what services need to be provided and contract with the group that provided the best strategy to execute” … “And frankly, this makes much more sense as to why the student groups bought into the �jeopardized funding� argument. The mere presence of an executive vetoing whole budgets only serves to slow down the process and doesn�t seem too compelling an argument. But insert the idea of an executive who already has a plan to change the entire rationale of funding, and it makes perfect sense for every funded group � especially the ones that have trouble articulating their service to campus � to oppose the new constitution.”