One thing a lot of people are saying is that it is not right somehow that Gray Davis could get 49 percent of the vote in the recall election and then be replaced by someone who gets only, say, 15 percent of the vote. They say that this could happen is wrong.
But this can happen in most any election in the U.S. where there is a primary; you could lose the election with 49 percent and, if there are a sufficient number of candidates, the eventual victor could have a relatively small percent. This has been possible for many years; the possibility of it cannot make it unfair, unless the whole system is unfair.
Bill Maher said something absolutely ludicrous the other night: that a recall is not how the "founding fathers" of this country intended the system to work. What he apparently doesn't realize is that the "founding fathers" had no collective intentions for the details of the selection of the leadership of the individual states, but left that as a matter for the individual states to decide for themselves.
And, in fact, the people of the state of California, a hundred years ago, decided that this is the way things should work in California. It is a democratic process if for no other reason but that the people of California have stated this is how it should work. And if they don't like it, they can change the process so this can't happen again.
Every complaint about the recall itself, every court challenge to it, seems to me to boil down to "it's the law, it's been the law for a long time, there is nothing remotely illegitimate about this procedure, and if you don't like it, then change the law."
That's not to say you shouldn't be opposed to the recall procedure as used here; personally, I think people who wish to use it just because they lost last time are abusing the process. But abuse of the process does not make it illegitimate. And it should also be noted that for every person I've talked to who wants Davis gone just because they dislike him, there are several who want him gone because he lied about the depth of the budget problem during the last election, or because he has continued to mismanage the state's economy.
Bill Maher did get one thing absolutely right, though: he said that if you want to get someone in the governor's mansion to really change things, to shake them up, then Arianna Huffington is the candidate for you. I don't think I would vote for her if I still lived in California, but I would consider it ... how can any libertarian not feel some affinity for an intelligent, capable person who wrote a book called "How To Overthrow The Government"?
Right now, the most interesting candidates to me are Huffington and Peter Ueberroth. If the main problem is fixing the budget, you should get people who can fix that problem: Ueberroth is someone who is just plain capable, having successfully run Major League Baseball, the 1984 Summer Olympics, and numerous large and small businesses. The guy's got sk1llz. He does not have, however, popular backing or name recognition. But if you talk to southern California businesspeople who are thinking about leaving the state, if they could hand-pick a governor to turn things around, he'd be the guy, and that's something to consider.
And what's funny is that if the vote were held today, Arnold would win and he has no more experience than Gary.
Re:Circus
pudge on 2003-08-10T19:05:27
The people of California decided they wanted it to work this way. You call it a circus, which it may be, but it is, in fact, what the people of California chose when they created the recall, and when they used it in the past. Calling it a circus and saying it makes us look like a laughingstock -- whether true or not -- are completely irrelevant and uninteresting assertions to me.
Saying it is a "handful of extremely wealthy Republicans"... it seems like you are trying to paint it as some fringe element controlling things, when the facts are that 1.3 million or so California voters directly approved of the recall vote, and so far it looks like a majority of California voters favor voting against Davis in the recall.
What I find funny is that non-Californians are telling the Californians that their chosen process is wrong. It's none of your business. Don't like it? Don't move to California! I make no assertions about the rightness of wrongness of the process -- other than offering legal opinion, for which I am eminently qualified;-) -- because it is not for me to say, and I actually lived in California for nine years. But I do no longer.
And no, Arnold has more experience than Gary. Maybe the difference is negligible on the scale we're looking at, but he was an appointed federal government official, and he married into the Kennedy family, and he has done significant work for public interests -- especially related to education -- in and out of government.
Re:Circus
TorgoX on 2003-08-10T21:33:32
The people of California decided they wanted it to work this way.I am a people of California, and I was not asked!
The proceduralist perspective comes down to: dead people who you don't know set it up this way for you and unless you follow the other process the dead peopleset up for changing it, then it will stay this way and therefore all is as it should be.
Well, no; if something is ridiculously broken, then pointing out that every step followed the letter of The Law (or, in Californian, The Lah) does little good other than to demonstrate the eternal inanity of merely following the letter of the law.
Yow! Are we manufacturing consent yet?
Re:Circus
pudge on 2003-08-11T02:18:30
I am a people of California, and I was not asked!
Sucks to be you. Especially living in Alaska!
The proceduralist perspective comes down to: dead people who you don't know set it up this way for you and unless you follow the other process the dead peopleset up for changing it, then it will stay this way and therefore all is as it should be.
Yes, that is exactly right, and good.
Well, no; if something is ridiculously broken, then pointing out that every step followed the letter of The Law (or, in Californian, The Lah) does little good other than to demonstrate the eternal inanity of merely following the letter of the law.
Well, no; if something is in your opinion broken, then you work to change it. Simply complaining that, in your opinion, it is broken does little good other than to demonstrate that you lack ability to actually get something done.
And it's not like this is old law that hasn't been used in California. This is not some anachronism, some procedure brought out of the cobwebs to see light for the first time in many years. It is something everyone who knows California politics has known about for a long time, and something they have all had ample opportunity to try to change long before now. I participated in a successful recall election in California, about 10 years ago, and recalls are almost constantly being threatened against unpopular politicians.
If people didn't like it, they could have worked to change the law. Complaining about it being ridiculously broken now is uninteresting. And because I want to make sure this news story's Sports Analogy Quota is met: you can't change the rules halfway through the game.
Also, normally when people use the phrase "the letter of the law" they are trying to contrast it to the spirit, or the intent, of the law. But in this case, I don't see how that is useful, as the letter and the intent of the law are being followed. To keep on the safe side of our Quota: the recall is to California politics as the instant replay is to football. It is a part of the game, it is something everyone knows about; but it is not always used, and is not integral to the game itself. But just because it is not always used doesn't mean using it is following the letter of the rules, but not the spirit; it is both. If you don't like the instant replay you can try to get rid of it, but for now, it is there, and you use it if you feel it is appropriate.
Re:Circus
vek on 2003-08-11T14:32:44
The people of California decided they wanted it to work this way. You call it a circus, which it may be, but it is, in fact, what the people of California chose when they created the recall, and when they used it in the past.
Actually quite a lot of people are calling it a circus not just Jamie. Yesterday's Arizona Republic Headline "Hurry, step right up! It's California's circus'. The fact that California wanted it this way is completely irrelevant and doesn't mean that people shouldn't comment on how ridiculous the whole thing is turning out.
Saying it is a "handful of extremely wealthy Republicans"... it seems like you are trying to paint it as some fringe element controlling things, when the facts are that 1.3 million or so California voters directly approved of the recall vote, and so far it looks like a majority of California voters favor voting against Davis in the recall.
Yes but didn't Darrell Issa put up 2 million of his own money to get the recall ball rolling? I wonder if there would have actually been a recall without his money?
It's none of your business. Don't like it? Don't move to California!
So we can't comment on things we don't agree with? News at 11 - political debate is dead. Anyone who disagrees with the Bush administration should just move to another country. Chris Nandor has the answer - 'Don't like the way the country is being run - move to frigging Canada then'.Re:Circus
pudge on 2003-08-11T14:49:28
Actually quite a lot of people are calling it a circus not just Jamie.
I never contended or implied otherwise.
Yesterday's Arizona Republic Headline "Hurry, step right up! It's California's circus'. The fact that California wanted it this way is completely irrelevant
Irrelevant to what? Whether it is a circus? I already said this, that it may be a circus, but that whether it is a circus is unimportant to the reality of the situation.
and doesn't mean that people shouldn't comment on how ridiculous the whole thing is turning out.
I think if you aren't in California, then it's none of your business. This is how they want it. Why should anyone else care? I don't understand. People are far too interested in other people's business.
Yes but didn't Darrell Issa put up 2 million of his own money to get the recall ball rolling? I wonder if there would have actually been a recall without his money?
Maybe not... so what? I fail to see how this is important in any way.
So we can't comment on things we don't agree with?
I never said you couldn't. What I am saying is that I don't see why you should even CARE. It has nothing whatever to do with you. It is not illegal, it is not unfair, it is not undemocratic. It is the will of the people of California, where you don't live.
But hey, if you want to do something so unproductive as to complain about how the people of the state of California choose to select their leaders -- when that method is absolutely legal and Constitutional -- go ahead. It just seems so utterly pointless. It's not like the people of California care what outsiders think; it's not like they need the help of outsiders in changing things; it's not like what you say or think will have any effect on the situation whatsoever.
I just think that if you are going to have opinions on things, it should be about things that you have some actual interest in: maybe it affects you; maybe you can effect change; maybe it is giving voice to people who have none. Do as you wish, but I generally prefer to not have opinions about the internal issues of other peoples, where there are no legal or moral issues at stake.
As you pointed out it's all a moot: the law is the law. If people don't like the law, they should change it. On the other hand, our political system has been reduced to petty bickering and gamesmanship. Making a few cosmetic changes will hardly matter so I can't say that I particularly care one way or another how things turn out in California. Nothing will change.
I'm waiting for horses with wings and dragons to start crawling out of the woodwork. Apparently SR2 is a map to reality.
Some things are now obvious to me about government procedures:
Re:Some things are obvious
pudge on 2003-08-12T18:26:26
I have no problem with plurality, as long as a majority chooses to accept a plurality. If that is what the people want, who am I to tell them they shouldn't do it? So I can't go along with "every election" and "no candidate."
However, if it is a district of *mine*, that is a different story. In that case, I am conflicted. One nice thing about runoffs is that it helps third-party candidates, in that you might be more inclined to vote third party, as right now people might vote for Gore instead of Nader just because they are afraid of Bush winning (just picking a well-known example); Nader would surely have gotten more votes if people knew there would be a runoff. On the other hand, then you go to the runoff, and all those Nader votes go to Gore, even though their favorite, their vote, was Nader. That doesn't seem quite "fair," either.
All in all, I prefer just voting for who you think is best and then picking the one who gets the most votes. I think that is the most democratic and fair way of doing things, though no system is perfect. This is why, incidentally, the two-party system is so popular among politicians and journalists these days, because it simplifies these issues. It makes their job easier. Not that I wish to make their job easier...
Moving on... I don't believe in statistical ties when you actually have physical things to count. You have a procedure to count the votes. Whoever gets the most wins. Statistical ties apply when you are doing approximations, when you are taking shortcuts to guess. Elections don't work that way. Yes, it is true that it is very difficult (though certainly not impossible) to do perfectly accurate counts of the vote, but that just means you need to come up with better procedures.
Yeah, and I knew the last point was related to the Texas legislature... I am not inclined to care too much about your little infighting, except to giggle furiously. ;-)
Re:Some things are obvious
jdavidb on 2003-08-12T18:59:13
Well, when I said "should," I was assuming this was in a state/country/district where I/you have a vested interest in getting it right. Other governments can do whatever the people there want, and it's no skin off my back. I was just musing on what I'd do if I were writing a constitution (or whatever).
Runoffs seem very fair to me. Seems like the Nader votes ought to go wherever the Nader voters wanted them, if he can't when. Maybe you'd enjoy reading about Condorcet's method and other interesting voting systems.
I disagree with your statement that it is not impossible to do a perfectly accurate count of an arbitrarily large number of votes. Human counts are inherently biased and, in the case of Florida, cause a sort of Heisenburg uncertainty principle: you actually modify the thing you are trying to measure. (I'm still upset that there were people eating chads, and still upset that a Republican watcher who asked why a Bush vote was being put in the Gore pile was expelled for being unreasonable.) Meanwhile, software, as we all know, has bugs. And any physical voting medium has flaws. Even if you completely computerized the vote and open sourced the software there could still be bugs. For me to trust the software that much, I'd want to know that it was developed with a SEI CMM level 5 process. And the government's never going to spring for that for something as unimportant as voting.
;) I am not inclined to care too much about your little infighting, except to giggle furiously.
;-) Yes, we're all rotfl here, too. For myself, I could care less about the outcome. The legislature hasn't set district boundaries since the 1990 census (little known fact in this dispute) so the Republicans are entirely within their rights to call for redistricting. However, it seems like that would be political suicide and we should just deal with it until 2010. On the gripping hand, I don't see a lot of people changing their fundamental opinion of the parties over this; the Democrats who are absent seem to be suffering politically in the general public's eyes, though in their own districts they are probably doing just fine. I do resent the implication that Democrats have fairly set congressional boundaries since Reconstruction but Republicans will obviously be biased.
Re:Some things are obvious
pudge on 2003-08-12T21:06:03
I disagree with your statement that it is not impossible to do a perfectly accurate count of an arbitrarily large number of votes.
You can disagree all you like, but it is, in fact, not impossible.:-) It is easy to imagine a system where accurate counts are not only possible, but immediately tallied. Yes, software has bugs, but that doesn't mean it is impossible to write software that is provably accurate in its tallies. Re:Some things are obvious
jamiemccarthy on 2003-08-14T13:39:09
"a Republican watcher who asked why a Bush vote was being put in the Gore pile was expelled for being unreasonable"Wow, I saw this debunked almost three years ago... you still believe it happened?
Re:Some things are obvious
jdavidb on 2003-08-14T14:20:54
I saw video of it on the evening news. I'm willing to listen if there's an alternative explanation for what I saw.
