Today’s election results are in.

Bolded names indicate winners.











Dorm Affairs Chair

Abby Michaelsen 51.21%

Evan Otis 48.78%

Total votes: 289


Class of 2016 President

Ted Hall 6.25%

Lawrence Beall 9.02%

Lexee Brill 6.25%

Zachariah Oquenda 6.94%

Iris Liu 37.50%

Rich Zajac 5.55%

Ben Turner 28.47%

Total votes: 144



The ASCMC constitution requires that a candidate receive 50 precent of the vote in order to be seated. When all candidates receive less than 50 percent, candidates are eliminated one by one and voters who named an eliminated candidate as a top choice have their subsequent choice counted. This process goes on until one candidate wins a majority of the votes. Technically, it is possible for candidate to win the first round of voting, yet lose the election. In this case that did not happen: Iris Liu ’16 had the greatest percentage of votes in every round. Liu won a majority of the votes in the 5th round.

Here are the full results:

Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Round 6
Ted Hall 6.25% 5.45% 0 0 0 0
Lawrence Beall 9.02% 9.09% 9.61% 10.13% 0 0
Lexee Brill 6.25% 9.09% 9.61% 0 0 0
Zachariah Oquenda 6.94% 8.48% 8.97% 10.81% 11.51% 0
Iris Liu 37.5% 39.39% 41.66% 45.27% 51.07% 56.69%
Rich Zajac 5.55% 0 0 0 0 0
Ben Turner 28.47% 28.48% 30.12% 33.78% 37.41% 43.30%




  1. Wow CMC made a very clear mistake in not electing Otis. This will become clear as the weeks go on. Damn

    • Maybe if he didn’t give the most halfassed speech in the history of mankind he would have won. Abby campaigned hard, and won, by a slim margin granted. It’s up to her to prove to the 7 voters that elected her that she deserves it. I’m sure she’ll do great.

    • I agree Otis was the better choice but he dropped the ball in making that clear to people who don’t already know him. He can, and hopefully will, still use his position as presidential advisor to have the influence this school needs.

  2. I just wanted to make clear that the results displayed for the Class of 2016 President are the results after the first round of voting. Because no candidate achieved a majority of the overall vote, the instant run-off procedure took effect. In round five of the instant runoff process, Iris attained the constitutionally-mandated majority.

  3. Holding the DAC special election on the same day as the freshman class president race was a mistake, and almost surely had a decisive effect on the election of a sophomore over a senior. Freshmen can and did turn out in much higher numbers, because their class race (and their first election of college) was occurring. Is no one else concerned that almost exactly half of the electorate was one class?

    By way of comparison, consider a congressional special election held on the same day as the mayoral election in one city within that district. Two candidates are on the congressional ballot: Candidate Lucky is from a city that borders and interacts with the mayoral-electing city; Candidate Screwed is from the opposite side of the district. Candidate Lucky has a considerable advantage in reaching out to and connecting to the constituency that is going to have an inordinate influence on the election. And let’s note: the inordinate influence is not the product of any organic or unavoidable issue (i.e. this is not a case, like the inordinate influence of seniors in voting, when the disparity simply reflects differing priorities within those demographics). This is a product of a flawed system, in which a campus-wide election was improperly thrust together with an election concerning only a subset of that campus.

    Congratulations, ASCMC: you now have a freshman class DAC.

    • As a member of elections committee, take my word for it that nobody held a gun to the head of seniors and juniors when they attempted to vote.

      I would thus have to argue with your point that we have a freshman class DAC. We have a CMC DAC. If people did not vote, it was not because they did not have the time – it takes approximately 10 seconds to write a check mark, fold it in half, and place it in a box. People who don’t vote generally don’t care. The voters who showed up to the polls thus represent an accurate cross section of the CMC population who actually care who their DAC is, making the election fair and representative.

      I think Otis would have been a sick DAC, but I in no way think Abby was unfairly elected, and she will certainly excel at her position (with Otis’s help as well). Yes, there was a higher turnout of freshmen, but I’m sure the candidates predicted that in their campaign strategy. Moreover, there was no reason for freshmen to be more excited about their class candidate than any regular CMCer should be about their school wide candidate. I hold firm that the election was fair, but I will allow this: maybe this will be a lesson to the CMC student body bringing them back to the glorious Gov 20 days….If you don’t vote, you don’t count.

      • A failure to vote is always a problem, but it’s not the only one that exists. And the existence of apathetic voters doesn’t imply that an election that failed to acknowledge obvious realities in the discrepancy of voting tendencies is fair. I hope gov 20 taught us far more nuanced and realistic points than that which you’ve highlighted. Plenty of people influence elections outside of voting, the circumstances of an election have enormous impacts on the fairness and the nature of the results, and turnout manipulation is often key to success.

        No one’s accusing Abby of cheating or even of exploiting the unfairness of the election structure (did she primarily campaign among freshmen? I wouldn’t blame her if she did, but it would be a sign that she recognized that something was going to be awry in the voting patterns). One can criticize the election without criticizing the winner. I hope she’ll do a great job. And, for the record, I don’t know if Evan would have. I don’t know either of the candidates, but I do have some experienced with elections, ASCMC and otherwise. And I believe strongly that this one was poorly organized.

        I served on the election committee for two years and chaired it for one. I appreciate that you weighed in to testify to the lack of official coercion in voting. Thankfully, I have more than enough confidence in CMCers to have assumed that was not happening. But I also know that I would never have allowed these two elections to occur on the same day.

        You say that there was no reason for freshmen to be more excited. I disagree strongly, and history backs this up. Turnout at CMC is always highest in freshmen class president elections, just as it is when newly incorporated cities hold their first elections. And when you put a campus-wide vote on the same ballot, you are either failing to acknowledge or accepting some powerful reverse coattails. More importantly, you’re failing to acknowledge or accepting a campus representative who does not accurately reflect even that small subset of CMCers who would, under normal circumstances, be inclined to vote.

        No evil occurred here, but a mistake did. And the election committee should take note, so that considerations beyond superficial fairness are a factor in future races.

        • You make a good point. We felt like it was rather silly to hold two separate elections back to back, not on the same day, since we had two vacancies and needed the positions filled ASAP. But we will consider issues like these in the future.

  4. What happened to letting off campus students vote in elections? I suspect that the DAC election might have turned out differently with more juniors in the mix…

  5. First off, I want to congratulate Abby on a very close win. She campaigned extremely hard and offered the student body a thoughtful speech that displayed her commitment and willingness to do the job correctly. In her speech and campaign, Abby encompassed and expressed all of the duties to which the DAC is constitutionally obliged: not only planning TNC and “raging parties,” but also making dorm life the best it can be… remember this is the DORM Affairs Chair and the duties are separate from that of the SAC (Steven Limandibhratha’s job).

    Second, Otis was a great candidate as well. He has a lot of experience and knows how to throw a killer party. He understands what the students want. I know this, because I know Otis well and enjoyed working with him on ASCMC and respected his opinion above many other peoples.’ Ultimately he did live up to the high expectation set with his speech. Those who don’t know Otis did not get to know him as a candidate during his speech, which I consider the whole point of a speech.

    Finally, Abby was elected and won in a fair election. There is no conspiracy theory here people. At the end of the day, we need to keep in mind this is a STUDENT GOVERNMENT ELECTION, not the real federal government. She should be given a chance to fulfill her duties and prove to us she is a decent DAC. I have known her for a while now and know that she is an incredibly hard worker. She will want to please the student body above everything and anything else, which is what you want out of a social chair. She will listen to the needs of the student body and execute parties and dorm events well with the help of ASCMC Exec Board and Dorm Presidents. I am not denying there is a huge learning curve; there definitely is, BUT it can be overcome. Hopefully Otis will continue as Pres. Advisor/Party Planning Expert and the two of them can collaborate, as Evan and I used to. This collaboration of two different approaches (which is created by Abby and Otis) to party planning results in the greatest parties and events possible, which is ultimately what this student body wants.

    Best of luck to Abby and the rest of the ASCMC board,
    Alexandra Cooke ’14

    • EDIT 2nd paragraph: “Ultimately he DID NOT live up to the high expectation set with his speech”.

  6. “If you don’t vote, you don’t count.” What about those of us who are abroad or have class all day and do not have time to physically go to the polls to vote? We should have offered online voting to eliminate this problem. I, for one, did not have the chance to vote for Otis, not because I am an apathetic voter, but because my packed school and work schedule simply did not allow me to go to Collins or the senior apartments yesterday on election day. For future elections, we should consider implementing an online voting system. Congratulations to Abby, anyhow.

  7. No one individual creates a vibrant social culture at CMC. Even the ASCMC executive board can only facilitate the framework. Its up to the student body as a whole to build the energy, excitement, and ridiculouness that is supposedly so inherent in CMC’s party scene. Current students, where is all that?
    It breaks my heart to hear current students speaking openly about how the social scene at CMC just isn’t that fun any more. I hate hearing about how many students feel they need to leave campus just to quench their thirst for a raucous party.
    You can blame it on the lack of elaborate party themes. You can call it DOS’ fault. But, the CMC students I know and love never fail to get their work done and then have as much fun as humanly possible. So please, for me, borrow some shitty speakers, buy a keg, share that beer with as many people as possible, dominate the ruit table, drunkenly belt out the words to your favorite songs, break into the CMC pool with a crew, and then find some poor sap to drive you to Santanas. What I wouldn’t give to do that a few more times.

Comments are closed.