CUSG Elections

CUSG 2024 Preliminary Results

Documented below are the official preliminary results of the Spring 2024 CU Student Government elections. During this election cycle, a tri-executive ticket, four representatives at-large, and five constitutional amendments were decided upon by student voters. The Election Commission will certify the election within 48 hours in adherence with the election once there has been a final decision made either with the Infraction Tribunal or a further decision with the CUSG Court if appropriate. Any questions about this process should be directed at the CUSG Election Commissioner - cusg.elections@colorado.edu 
 

Total Votes: 3,765

Voter Turnout: 11.03%

 

Tri-Executive Election

This election was counted with an instant runoff ranked choice model. Round 1 consists of the first preference votes for all candidates and votes with no first preference listed. Subsequent rounds are conducted by eliminating the lowest-ranking candidates and redistributing their votes based on second-place and, if need be, third-place voter selections. A winner is selected when a majority of votes has been attained by one ticket.

A no-preference category is included for the Tri-Executive and Rep. at Large elections so as to accurately represent the will of voters who may not have cast a first-choice ballot for a particular candidate, but may have chosen to rank candidates in other slots; some voters may be consciously indifferent between some candidates or do not want to cast a vote for someone they do not support.

Round 1

First Choice Votes

GOLD	932
Ignite	640
Exel	1182
No Preference	1011

As the Ignite ticket has the lowest number of votes, it is eliminated. Ignite's first-choice ballots are reallocated based on Ignite voters' rankings of the remaining tickets or are reallocated to the no-preference category if no other candidates were ranked. 

Round 2

Vote Redistribution 1

GOLD	1290
Exel	1414
No Preference	1061

No Preference votes are eliminated. Voters who expressed no preference for a first-choice vote will have their second or third-preference vote reallocated to Exel or GOLD if such a vote was cast. 

 

Round 3

Vote Redistribution 2

GOLD	1535
Exel	1873

As the GOLD ticket has the lowest number of votes, it is eliminated. GOLD's first-choice ballots are reallocated based on voters' rankings of the remaining tickets. 

 

Round 4

Vote Redistribution 3

Exel

2275

Exel is the only remaining candidate, has attained a majority, and is elected.

 

Tri-Executive Data Visualization
Bar Chart ♦ Table By Round ♦ Summary Table ♦ Video Summary

 

Representative At-Large Election

The Rep. at Large election was also conducted with an instant runoff ranked choice model. Round 1 consists of the first preference votes for all candidates and votes with no first preference listed. Subsequent rounds are conducted by eliminating the lowest-ranking candidates and redistributing their votes based on second-place voter selections. A winner is selected when four candidates remain for the four Rep. at Large seats up for election.

Round 1

First Choice Votes

Weston Lilley*	140
Samuel Veta	512
Brylan Graber	269
Suho Jaeger	286
Aydan Roper	260
Jeb Brown	1164
Morgan McDonough	596
No Preference	538

*Withdrew candidacy

As Weston Lilley has the lowest number of votes, Lilley is eliminated. Lilley's first-choice ballots are reallocated based on Lilley voters' rankings of the remaining candidates or are reallocated to the no-preference category if no other candidates were ranked.

Round 2

Vote Redistribution 1

Samuel Veta	535
Brylan Graber	295
Suho Jaeger	319
Aydan Roper	270
Jeb Brown	1178
Morgan McDonough	618
No Preference	550

As Aydan Roper has the lowest number of votes, Roper is eliminated. Roper's first-choice ballots are reallocated based on Roper voters' rankings of the remaining candidates or are reallocated to the no-preference category if no other candidates were ranked.

Round 3

Vote Redistribution 2

Samuel Veta	569
Brylan Graber	333
Suho Jaeger	362
Jeb Brown	1217
Morgan McDonough	684
No Preference	571

As Brylan Graber has the lowest number of votes, Graber is eliminated. Graber's first-choice ballots are reallocated based on Graber voters' rankings of the remaining candidates or are reallocated to the no-preference category if no other candidates were ranked.
 

Winning Candidates' Final Vote Totals

Samuel Veta	602
Suho Jaeger	404
Jeb Brown	1266
Morgan McDonough	766
No Preference	587

Representative-At-Large Data Visualization
Bar Chart ♦ Table By Round ♦ Summary Table ♦ Video Summary

 

Constitutional Amendments

Five amendments to the CUSG Constitution were placed on the ballot in this election. Voters were asked to vote yes or no on these amendments. Per the CUSG Constitution, only for and against votes shall be considered in determining the approval or disapproval of these amendments. As turnout for this election has exceeded 10%, all amendments approved by ⅔ of votes cast for and against them shall be adopted.
 

Question One: "Shall the CUSG Constitution be amended to make minor clerical changes and comply with state law regarding protected classes?

Yes	2907
No	344
Blank	514
Approval% (w/blanks)	77.2%
Approval% (yes/no)	89.42%

Question Two: "Shall the CUSG Constitution be amended to rename the 'Appellate Court' to the 'CUSG Court' and to reserve one (1) seat therein for a post-baccalaureate student?"

Yes	2659
No	504
Blank	602
Approval% (w/blanks)	70.6%
Approval% (yes/no)	84.06%

 

Question Three: "Shall the CUSG Constitution be amended to clarify the operations of the Election Commission and electoral processes?"

Yes	2830
No	304
Blank	631
Approval% (w/blanks)	75.1%
Approval% (yes/no)	90.3%

 

Question Four: "Shall the CUSG Constitution be amended to ensure clear communication among all branches of CUSG regarding amendments to the CUSG/Chancellor Operating Agreement?"

Yes	2839
No	278
Blank	648
Approval% (w/blanks)	75.4%
Approval% (yes/no)	91.08%

 

Question Five: "Shall the CUSG Constitution be amended to clarify the Executive(s)' ability to introduce measures to the Legislative Council?"

Yes	2752
No	352
Blank	661
Approval% (w/blanks)	73.1%
Approval% (yes/no)	88.66%

Constiutional Amendment Data Visualization
Video Summary