Questions about the recall -- Left-Wing Discussion

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Wed 2003-09-24 07:30:28
Author: Redeye
Subject: Questions about the recall

I'm interesting in hearing what you guys think of the California recall... Below are a few guiding questions, but feel free to say whatever you think about anything:

1. If you lived in CA, would you vote to recall Davis?
2. Regardless of question 1, do you think that Davis is doing a good job?
3. If you lived in CA, who would you vote for on the replacement?
4. Do you think that recalls should be conducted in the Californian way, i.e. two separate questions, or in the way every other state does it, i.e. one question?
5. Do you agree with the 9th Circuit Court's decision to postpone the recall?

My answers:

1. Yes. While the two leading replacement candidates aren't any better than Davis, they aren't any worse, either. Therefore, in terms of utility scores, there's no difference between voting for and voting against. However, I think that Davis is doing a bad job (see answer 2), plus if the recall fails then the recall procedure will be discredited. On the other hand, if it passes, then it'll be legitimized, plus the governor we'll get will have the mandate of only 28-30% of the Californian electorate.

2. No. Davis' recent pay hike to the prison industry and 220 million dollars appropriated for death row is bad in itself; what he did to pay for that - increase UC and CSU tuition by 30% - turns this into a horrid act. On top of that, he failed to stand up to Enron in 2001, and also failed to hedge properly to ensure that the contract with Enron wouldn't crash as it indeed did. A lot of California's fiscal problems would have been averted if, as Camejo suggested on hindsight, Davis had hedged the contract with Enron using put futures. And besides, Davis truly lives up to his first name; he may be good for a board of corporate executives, but he isn't good for leadership.

3. Georgy Russell. Cruz Bustamante supports the death penalty for 14-year-olds, and is involved in quid pro quos with native casinos. Were he a Republican, he'd make at least two different appearance on the Top Ten Conservative Idiots list; however, since he is a member of the Democratic wing of the Republicratic party, he's given a free pass. The Terminator, on the other hand, is one of the best candidates the GOP can give us, his low intelligence notwithstanding (he's starting to voice his opinions on issues now). I won't say that there's no difference between the leading two replacement candidates; I will, however, say that the differences between them (and also between them and Davis) cancel one another out. Therefore, I may well vote my conscience, and that's exactly Georgy Russell, who not only has the right positions on the issues, but also emphasizes the important issues and deemphasizes the unimportant ones. I will, however, vote for Camejo or Arianna if he/she has a chance to win.

4. The Californian way. There's no electoral system in existence that really requires a candidate to get 50% of the popular vote (even majority vote only requires the winner to get a majority in one specific two-way race). Therefore, conducting recalls in the Californian way is a good check against governors with an approval rate below 50%. Further, it is better at recalling bad governors than the non-Californian way, because this way the governor can't really rely on even worse replacement candidates to tiptoe his way out of being recalled.

5. I'm ambivalent, tending on yes. On the one hand, 500,000 votes have been cast and will be thrown away if the decision stands. On the other hand, those votes can be cast again, whereas the ~40,000 votes that won't be counted if the punchcard system is used can't. On a third hand, LA County can't handle having the recall election and two initiatives on Super Tuesday along with the Democratic primary. On a fourth hand, the recall can be conducted at some time between 10/7 and 3/2 - say, 11/4 (first Tuesday after first Monday in November), or whatever time all punchcard ballots are upgraded to optical scan.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Another reason to support Russell: she's often mistaken for a Green, even though she's a D-Republicrat -- Redeye, Wed 2003-09-24 10:00:37