Recall election in california: Think it will do anything?

[mugs]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Yes, but that means that Davis needs 50% to win, while the guy trying to unseat him only has to finish second behind Davis, regardless of how many votes, as long as Davis doesn't get 50%.

You can't look at it like a regular election though... you're not voting FOR Davis, you're voting AGAINST recalling him (or for recalling him). Like I said before, it would be more fair if there was one election to recall or not recall him, then a separate election (if necessary) to decide who his replacement should be. Then you would be guaranteed that the new governor would have at least a plurality of the votes. Unfortunately California sucks and has not fallen into the Pacific yet. 🙂 I do think that Davis ought to need 50% to stay in office though.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Ylen13

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Ylen13

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Ylen13

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii

Originally posted by: SuperTool
What if a majority of people vote to recall Davis, yet more people vote to keep him than to appoint any of the other candidates, like if there is a split vote in the second part of the ballot. Then more people would have voted for Davis than for either of the other candidates, yet he has to give up his job to a guy who got less votes than him? Seems undemocratic and flawed to me.

Well, if > 50% vote to recall him, then he DOES deserve to be recalled, even if they are split as to who should replace him. Ideally, it would be two separate votes one to recall him, one to decide his replacement. Or, if he is recalled and no one has a majority of the vote, have a run-off election. My understanding is that if you vote to keep him in office, you can't vote for who his replacement should be, IF he is recalled. That's not really right, because that prevents the democrats from offering an alternative to Davis.

on the second question, who ever has the most votes win. So lts say person 1 has 5% person 2 has 7% and person 3 has 10% of the votes person 3 wins

But what if Davis gets 49% of the votes, and the 5 alternatives each get around 10%.
Then Davis gets defeated even though he whooped all their @sses, and the guy getting 11% wins?

let me try to explain it agen

question 1 will be , do u want to recal davis yes or no. which choice has the greatest vote wins.If no wins end of election, they will not even look at question 2

If the result of question 1 after the count of all ballet yes wins then they go to question 2 were davis name is not listed

Yes, but that means that Davis needs 50% to win, while the guy trying to unseat him only has to finish second behind Davis, regardless of how many votes, as long as Davis doesn't get 50%.

no davis just need to have more votes for no then yes, from what i read. question 1 don't require any majority just who ever has more votes win. So technically davis don't need 50% to win and if he get recall then davis name is not on replacement list

No, I just read that link. It says that if Davis doesn't get 50% to vote to keep him in office he's out. Then they'll pick the "winner" from the second questions, and even if more people vote to keep Davis (not recall) than to put this "winner" into office, this so called "winner" takes the governorship.
This is the most absurd law I've ever heard. Basically it gives minorities who could not get their guy into office an opportunity to overrule the election whenever the governors' approval dips below 50%.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Ylen13no davis just need to have more votes for no then yes, from what i read. question 1 don't require any majority just who ever has more votes win. So technically davis don't need 50% to win and if he get recall then davis name is not on replacement list

Question 1 is yes or no... so he DOES need a majority. 🙂

 

[Ylen13]

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii

Originally posted by: Ylen13no davis just need to have more votes for no then yes, from what i read. question 1 don't require any majority just who ever has more votes win. So technically davis don't need 50% to win and if he get recall then davis name is not on replacement list

Question 1 is yes or no... so he DOES need a majority. 🙂

guess so 😱

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Yes, but that means that Davis needs 50% to win, while the guy trying to unseat him only has to finish second behind Davis, regardless of how many votes, as long as Davis doesn't get 50%.

You can't look at it like a regular election though... you're not voting FOR Davis, you're voting AGAINST recalling him (or for recalling him). Like I said before, it would be more fair if there was one election to recall or not recall him, then a separate election (if necessary) to decide who his replacement should be. Then you would be guaranteed that the new governor would have at least a plurality of the votes. Unfortunately California sucks and has not fallen into the Pacific yet. 🙂 I do think that Davis ought to need 50% to stay in office though.

Why? Bush didn't get elected with 50% of the votes.
Should we have recall elections every time a governors' popularity dips below 50%?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

This is the most absurd law I've ever heard. Basically it gives minorities who could not get their guy into office an opportunity to overrule the election whenever the governors' approval dips below 50%.

Theoretically yeah, but do you really think it'll be used very often? It's like the power to break a filibuster in the senate - it's not used often. Nor is the power to filibuster. The republicans are doing this because of the specifics of the case - Gray lied through his teeth to get elected. Had he told the truth, he probably would NOT have been elected.

Personally, I think the Republicans should not have done this, because it makes them look as bad as the Florida democrats after the 2000 presidential election. We hate our governor in New Jersey, but we'll wait until the next election to replace him. Why did Whitman have to go and take that stinking EPA job? :frown:

Edit: The way California does it is not flawed because only 50% of the vote is required to recall Davis, it is flawed because it essentially prevents the democrats from putting an alternative candidate on the ballot.

 

[zantac]

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii

Theoretically yeah, but do you really think it'll be used very often?

This is something like the 30th time its been tried in california. So uh, yeah I think it will be.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: zantac

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii

Theoretically yeah, but do you really think it'll be used very often?

This is something like the 30th time its been tried in california. So uh, yeah I think it will be.

30th time? Do you have a source for that? Because only one other governor has ever been successfully recalled in the history of the country, and he wasn't from California. If they tried this 30 times before, I'd think they would have succeeded before.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii

Originally posted by: SuperTool

This is the most absurd law I've ever heard. Basically it gives minorities who could not get their guy into office an opportunity to overrule the election whenever the governors' approval dips below 50%.

Theoretically yeah, but do you really think it'll be used very often? It's like the power to break a filibuster in the senate - it's not used often. Nor is the power to filibuster. The republicans are doing this because of the specifics of the case - Gray lied through his teeth to get elected. Had he told the truth, he probably would NOT have been elected.

Personally, I think the Republicans should not have done this, because it makes them look as bad as the Florida democrats after the 2000 presidential election. We hate our governor in New Jersey, but we'll wait until the next election to replace him. Why did Whitman have to go and take that stinking EPA job? :frown:

Edit: The way California does it is not flawed because only 50% of the vote is required to recall Davis, it is flawed because it essentially prevents the democrats from putting an alternative candidate on the ballot.

Should we recall all the politicans who lie to get elected? He didn't lie under oath, so it's not a criminal act.
Why should a small minority have the power to force the voters of CA to have to reaffirm their pick for governor, when we just voted to appoint the governor to a full term less than a year ago.
I will sign petition and vote to recall any governor who does not get appointed by at least a plurality. I don't care if he is a nice guy or not.

 

[zantac]

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii
30th time? Do you have a source for that? Because only one other governor has ever been successfully recalled in the history of the country, and he wasn't from California. If they tried this 30 times before, I'd think they would have succeeded before.

Recall campaigns have been attempted 31 times against California governors but none have made it to the ballot. Few Republican activists thought the latest effort would get so far.

sorry for the link to fox news 😉 it popped up first in google search

 

[0roo0roo]

if the republicans get their way, a new governor can be elected with less then 20% of the votes. thats just pitiful.

its one thing when a recall is started by a grass roots effort, its another when its funded by the losing party. there was no grass root call for a recall, the losers just want to paralyze the government for partisan gain. nothing new for republicans.

now in times of budget crisis, when the governor should be working 18 hr days to get stuff done, he has to run for election?

now that we have cuts everywhere, the republicans have forced us to spend 40 million dollars to pay for this farce of an election. republicans simply love to waste tax payer money.

not to mention the top republican recall funder has a criminal record.

 

[LeeTJ]

call me stupid but.

Davis is a legally elected official right? he hasn't commited any crimes, right?

they want to recall him because of their dissatisfaction overall.


OK, IF they want to recall him AFTER he was legally elected and they have NO grounds for an impeachment (which they obviously don't otherwise they would have) then i'd think they would be required MORE than a simple majority in order to recall him.

This isn't a parlamentarian government for pete's sake. IF it's just a simple majority then in my opinion that's a huge mistake. too many of our politicians try to govern or lead by poll anyway, which obviously is a contradiction in terms, how can you be a LEADER if you are always following the polls. BUT if you could recall a legally elected official with JUST a simple majority than it would send the wrong message.

Elected leaders HAVE to be empowered to do things that may sometimes NOT be the most popular thing just because it is the RIGHT thing.

Isn't this one of those things that requires a SUPER majority? 65% right?

 

[Pliablemoose]

Was listening to a story on public radio on thursday about the recall, they commented that the political landscape is littered with corpses of people that thought they could take on Gov Davis...

I think the recall is dumb, Does the economy suck? Recall the Gov & elect someone else...

 

[Lucky]

Isn't this one of those things that requires a SUPER majority? 65% right?

Nope, the recall initiative only took about 5% of the registered voters. However, over half of registered voters would vote "dump him" if the recall were phrased as a question of whether he should stay or go.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: LeeTJ
call me stupid but.

Davis is a legally elected official right? he hasn't commited any crimes, right?

they want to recall him because of their dissatisfaction overall.


OK, IF they want to recall him AFTER he was legally elected and they have NO grounds for an impeachment (which they obviously don't otherwise they would have) then i'd think they would be required MORE than a simple majority in order to recall him.

This isn't a parlamentarian government for pete's sake. IF it's just a simple majority then in my opinion that's a huge mistake. too many of our politicians try to govern or lead by poll anyway, which obviously is a contradiction in terms, how can you be a LEADER if you are always following the polls. BUT if you could recall a legally elected official with JUST a simple majority than it would send the wrong message.

Elected leaders HAVE to be empowered to do things that may sometimes NOT be the most popular thing just because it is the RIGHT thing.

Isn't this one of those things that requires a SUPER majority? 65% right?

The state government is whatever the people there want it to be as long as it does not fall afoul of the Constitution. Personally, while I see pitfalls in the California system, I like the idea of accountability. Second term Presidents have no accountability to the public. What is going to happen, they not be elected to a third term? Some form of potential vote of confidence hanging over officials heads might not be so bad. I agree that the system there is too easily abused by politicians wanting to get a second shot at the office, but I believe something better could be created.

 

[LeeTJ]

you can have leadership at the cost of democracy or you can have democracy at the cost of leadership.

it's really difficult finding a balance, right now, we have strayed soo far from the idea that our politicians are LEADERS. who is the last great leader we've seen in American politics?

they are all poll driven.

going back even to FDR, he had to deceive the public in order to have us join in WWII.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: Cruisin1
His term up in a few months? He was just re-elected last year dude!

Which leads me to one question...

WHAT IN THE HELL WERE YOU GUYS THINKING WHEN YOU GUYS RE-ELECTED DAVIS IN THE FIRST PLACE?!?

I mean, come on guys! Think! After the whole California power crisis fiasco, you should have figured out that this bozo didn't have the required skills to govern a state in the first place. Why did it take Californians another two years to finally realize that this guy is incompetent?

He's a liberal democrat, and liberal democrats vote their own kind no matter what. I wouldn't mind if Davis stayed in office for full term just to watch California fall into the depths of hell. Then maybe the democrats would finally get a clue and in retalliation for being let down by their own party member, they'd vote in some Republican senators and reps. :evil:

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: Cruisin1
His term up in a few months? He was just re-elected last year dude!

Which leads me to one question...

WHAT IN THE HELL WERE YOU GUYS THINKING WHEN YOU GUYS RE-ELECTED DAVIS IN THE FIRST PLACE?!?

I mean, come on guys! Think! After the whole California power crisis fiasco, you should have figured out that this bozo didn't have the required skills to govern a state in the first place. Why did it take Californians another two years to finally realize that this guy is incompetent?

He's a liberal democrat, and liberal democrats vote their own kind no matter what. I wouldn't mind if Davis stayed in office for full term just to watch California fall into the depths of hell. Then maybe the democrats would finally get a clue and in retalliation for being let down by their own party member, they'd vote in some Republican senators and reps. :evil:

Your ignorance knows no bounds (but that was always a given) The Economic crisis and the power crisis spans partisan Politics. Both Parties and their reps were at fault and both situations actually started before Davis was elected Governor the first time. Besides, the nominies the Ca Republicans put forth every election are jokes at best. Now there's talk about Huffington Running for the Republica Ticket. For those who don't know he was soundly defeated by Fienstien for Senator and after his defeat he came out of the closet as a Nancyboy Bonesmoker. Of course there is Ahnold or Simple Simon, the Corrupt Businessman Davis beat in the last election.

 

[0roo0roo]

not to mention bush's involvement with the whole power fiasco. we asked him for help against corrupt power companies. he said no, he'd rather protect enron and the other cronies since they funded his campaign. and now with all the dirty tricks the companies played coming out into the open, bush has nothing to say. 😛 bush f*cked california.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
not to mention bush's involvement with the whole power fiasco. we asked him for help against corrupt power companies. he said no, he'd rather protect enron and the other cronies since they funded his campaign. and now with all the dirty tricks the companies played coming out into the open, bush has nothing to say. 😛 bush f*cked california.

Hey we (well Ca Politicians) fscked ourselves before Dubya even thought about running for President.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: elanarchist

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: Cruisin1
His term up in a few months? He was just re-elected last year dude!

Which leads me to one question...

WHAT IN THE HELL WERE YOU GUYS THINKING WHEN YOU GUYS RE-ELECTED DAVIS IN THE FIRST PLACE?!?

I mean, come on guys! Think! After the whole California power crisis fiasco, you should have figured out that this bozo didn't have the required skills to govern a state in the first place. Why did it take Californians another two years to finally realize that this guy is incompetent?

Maybe its because the power crisis was exacerbated a hundred fold by the White House, not Davis. There would have been no crisis had the White House intervened by introducing price controls to prevent the energy companies from charging California up to 1000x the normal wholesale price for power by playing games with the electricity supply.

State has jurisdiction, not the federal government. You don't see the other states collapsing as bad.

They did this by creativing scheduling maintainence at peak times, withholding supplies of power, and refusing to build more capacity. After all, why spend billions in capital to meet demand when you can restrict supply and get uber profit by having the freedom to charge whatever you want. And, who ends up paying for the debt caused by these gross overcharges that cost the state billions?

You can blame that on the evironmentalists who won't let new power companies be built.

None other than the California taxpayer.

It's either that or the rest of the U.S. taxpapers. States need to take care of themselves and take responsibility for themselves. Stop whining to the federal government to bail you out when you make the mess.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: Cruisin1
His term up in a few months? He was just re-elected last year dude!

Which leads me to one question...

WHAT IN THE HELL WERE YOU GUYS THINKING WHEN YOU GUYS RE-ELECTED DAVIS IN THE FIRST PLACE?!?

I mean, come on guys! Think! After the whole California power crisis fiasco, you should have figured out that this bozo didn't have the required skills to govern a state in the first place. Why did it take Californians another two years to finally realize that this guy is incompetent?

He's a liberal democrat, and liberal democrats vote their own kind no matter what. I wouldn't mind if Davis stayed in office for full term just to watch California fall into the depths of hell. Then maybe the democrats would finally get a clue and in retalliation for being let down by their own party member, they'd vote in some Republican senators and reps. :evil:

Your ignorance knows no bounds (but that was always a given) The Economic crisis and the power crisis spans partisan Politics. Both Parties and their reps were at fault and both situations actually started before Davis was elected Governor the first time. Besides, the nominies the Ca Republicans put forth every election are jokes at best. Now there's talk about Huffington Running for the Republica Ticket. For those who don't know he was soundly defeated by Fienstien for Senator and after his defeat he came out of the closet as a Nancyboy Bonesmoker. Of course there is Ahnold or Simple Simon, the Corrupt Businessman Davis beat in the last election.

You are correct my ignornance is boundless! 😀 I'm just ruffling feathers. I agree that California politics is corrupt on both ends of the spectrum. I'm ready to start looking for or creating a new party because both are spending too much time fighting each other and no time getting stuff done. 🙁

 

[elanarchist]

Maybe its because the power crisis was exacerbated a hundred fold by the White House, not Davis. There would have been no crisis had the White House intervened by introducing price controls to prevent the energy companies from charging California up to 1000x the normal wholesale price for power by playing games with the electricity supply.

State has jurisdiction, not the federal government. You don't see the other states collapsing as bad.

California had no jurisdiction over the price of power. The power companies could charge the state whatever they wanted as power is something that you just got to have regardless of price. This could have been prevented had Bush imposed price controls to keep the greedy and corrupt power companes (think Enron) from gouging California consumers. Only the Federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce. Could it be more than mere coincidence that the companies that made billions of this overcharging were by and large Bush's old buddies from Texas (Enron, Dynegy, etc).

They did this by creativing scheduling maintainence at peak times, withholding supplies of power, and refusing to build more capacity. After all, why spend billions in capital to meet demand when you can restrict supply and get uber profit by having the freedom to charge whatever you want. And, who ends up paying for the debt caused by these gross overcharges that cost the state billions?

You can blame that on the evironmentalists who won't let new power companies be built.

I'll concede that you can share part of the blame with environmentalists, but still, the bottom line was that the power companies had more incentive to withhold supply for higher profits than to expend capital for new plants. This would increase supply, thus prices as well as profit would fall, something which any good businessman knows is bad for the company.

None other than the California taxpayer.

It's either that or the rest of the U.S. taxpapers. States need to take care of themselves and take responsibility for themselves. Stop whining to the federal government to bail you out when you make the mess.[/quote]

Again, this goes back to the argument that had the White House intervened two years ago, the abuses by the power companies that cost the state billions wouldn't have happened. Certainly, California should take the blame for overspending and racking up a 38 billion dollar deficit, yet its hard to contest that a good portion of this deficit is due to the inaction of the White House years ago. So in essence, Californians didn't create the entire mess on their own.