response 116 of 264:

Aug 13 22:16 UTC 2003

California's *general election* laws don't generally require greater than 50%
to win, nor do the general election laws in most parts of the US.  You just
need a plurality.

The difference here is that in most such elections, getting on the ballot is
difficult.

Still, I suspect we'll see somebody come out of this with reasonably broad
support.  Perhaps not 50%, but enough to win a three way general election at
least.

response 118 of 264:

Aug 14 01:38 UTC 2003

According to foxnews.com, the order of the names is not rotated by 
"voting district," but by state assembly district:

"The state also has a process to rotate the names in subsequent assembly 
districts. If "Robinson" were the first name on the 1st Assembly 
district, it would drop to the bottom of the Rs in the 2nd Assembly 
District, and the second name that starts with R would go to the top of 
the sequence. When the R's are finished, the first name that starts with 
W will lead the ballot and all the R's would be on the bottom. There are 
80 Assembly Districts in the state and 131 certified names by Wednesday 
morning, so many candidates' names will never lead the list. California 
implemented this system after studies showed that the traditional A, B, 
C method disproportionately favors candidates with last names that 
placed them higher on the ballot."

response 120 of 264:

Aug 14 03:44 UTC 2003

Klg is correct, but loses credibility points for quoting Fox News. ;)

response 122 of 264:

Aug 14 13:23 UTC 2003

Yes, something like a 5% boost for being top of the ticket.  Some fella 
sued the state a while back for this reason, and so now they do the 
lottery thing.

response 124 of 264:

Aug 14 16:02 UTC 2003

We are, Mr. scg, fair and balanced.

response 126 of 264:

Aug 17 00:26 UTC 2003

We don't think there is a danger of being sued unless we have realized a 
commercial gain.  So, please send us a check for $1,000.  (On second 
thought, from you we'd prefer cash.)

response 128 of 264:

Aug 17 02:44 UTC 2003

I agree with richard, resp:115, that a runoff would be sensible with 
so many on the ballot.

I disagree with richard, resp:114, that the random order on the 
ballots is senseless.  There's enough of an advantage for being at the 
top of the ballot that I'd expect the alphabetically first name to be 
a shoo in.  However, I'll admit it didn't occur to me just how 
inconvenient it will be for the voters to have the names appear 
randomly with so many on the ballot.

response 130 of 264:

Aug 17 20:54 UTC 2003

also, there is some fear about well known names drawing votes away from
lesser known candidates.

Robert Dole is running as a republican

Micheal Jackson is running as an independent

Of course it isn't the mfamous people we all know.  just local businessmen.

response 132 of 264:

Aug 17 22:04 UTC 2003

s/stick/pick/

response 134 of 264:

Aug 18 03:16 UTC 2003

I heard on the news that the Lt. Gov. essentially made a
plea for voters to oust Davis and elect him.  This marks
the onset of "every man for himself" among the Democrats.

"Et tu, Cruz?" -- Gray Davis

response 136 of 264:

Aug 18 15:01 UTC 2003

Not really. I mean he might want all the folks who vote no to the 
recall to vote for him just in case the recall passes. What is he 
supposed to say "vote no but vote for Arnold?"

response 138 of 264:

Aug 18 22:59 UTC 2003

#135..the lt. governor is a democrat and is pushing the democrats 
current strategy.  He is encouraging everyone to vote no on the recall, 
but on the recall ballot to vote for him JUST IN CASE.  He's in a no 
lose situation because he'll either end up governor or will 
dramatically increase his name recognition/exposure in advance of the 
next regular election for governor, when he'd presumably be the leading 
candidate or one of them.

There are now polls showing this vote no/vote yes strategy might work, 
schwarzenegger's numbers are slipping and I guess the lt. governor is 
well known enough that he's seen as a safe alternative in the event the 
recall goes through.  

I predict here and now that the recall will fail, because voters will 
realize that the only way to discourage the possibility of another 
recall vote next year and the year after and every year going forward, 
is to nip this one in the bud.  This recall petition effort was 
succesful because one candidate, Issa, is a multi millionaire and 
pumped several million of his own money into heavy advertising.  Which 
was more than enough to get most of the people who voted AGAINST Davis 
last time to sign petitions.  I mean they'd have to figure why not, 
they didn't vote for him in the first place.  So now that the formula 
for a succesful petition drive is in place, it'll happen again and 
again.  Unless voters express their solid preferance at the polls for 
having elections every four years.

This special recall election will cost this state, in an economic 
crisis, $60-75 million to put on.  Surely voters will realize that no 
matter how much they dislike Davis now, it isn't worth setting the 
precedent and spending the money, not just this year but in years to 
come.  And make no mistake, if Davis is recalled, and replaced by a 
Republican, there will be Democrats more than willing to spend millions 
of dollars on another massive recall petition next year.  Because 
turnabout is fair play.  The only sensible move is to stop this now. 

response 140 of 264:

Aug 19 13:17 UTC 2003

Yeah, the hard right is starting to back away from Ahnold in California.