#183361 - 08/10/2003 08:55
Re: California and Arnie?
[Re: loren]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
What were the concrete reasons that people didn't like Gov. Davis? I've yet to figure that out (not that I follow California politics closely).
I mean, ignoring the political cause of instigating the recall vote itself, there had to be some reason for over four million people to vote to oust him.
Edited by wfaulk (08/10/2003 08:57)
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#183362 - 08/10/2003 09:35
Re: California and Arnie?
[Re: wfaulk]
|
old hand
Registered: 28/12/2001
Posts: 868
Loc: Los Angeles
|
> What were the concrete reasons that people didn't like Gov. Davis? I've yet to figure that out (not that I follow California politics closely).
Well, I live here and I could not figure it out either. I have been asking a lot of people recently why, and I am still kind of unsatisfied. I think a lot of people blame him for the energy problems and the recession, which is stupid; Bush and previous governor Pete Wilson are to blame for those things. He has raised the so-called car tax, the cost of registering your car, which seems like a reasonable tax to me given the nature of California politics. There are some other misc taxes and fees that have been raised, and it didn't help him that a lot of those bills came in in the last month. There is a lot of anti-illegal immigrant feelings here and his proposal for illegals to be able to get drivers licenses pissed a lot of people off. There seems to be a feeling that Davis has no morals or principles and is available to the highest special interest bidder. I think in that regard, anyone imagining that Arnold is going to be any better should have clued into his "I will not take special interest money" flip-flop, when he said he wouldn't, while he already was.
As for Arnold, I don't hate the man. I do not think he can handle the job though and I have little faith in his talents. I believe he is basically a good man though (groping aside) and I just hope that he doesn't screw it up too bad.
Of course, at one time, I felt the exact same way about Bush. That didn't turn out so well.
Spent the night reading, watching, and basically immersed in election news. Some of the better funny tidbits:
Arnold becomes the second actor from Predator to become a governor of a state. Carl Weathers said to be biding his time. - Commennts on Fark
I am sure Arnold will be a "hands-on" governor. - Arianna Huffington
Beaking news: Confused Al Gore demands recount - Letterman
_________________________
Ninti - MK IIa 60GB Smoke, 30GB, 10GB
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#183363 - 08/10/2003 10:13
Re: California and Arnie?
[Re: ninti]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
I think a lot of people blame him for the energy problems and the recession, which is stupid; Bush and previous governor Pete Wilson are to blame for those things.
Ah, yes. Blame it on the republicans.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#183364 - 08/10/2003 10:13
Re: California and Arnie?
[Re: loren]
|
stranger
Registered: 26/08/2000
Posts: 44
Loc: California
|
Now we'll have a minority elected Governer. Hows that any better? Just thought I'd point out that Arnold appears to be getting a higher percentage of a higher turnout than Gray Davis did last year. See here and here. The other thing that's making me angry... Exit polls are now apparently gospel. That, and they've been saying the same thing all week on every news broadcast, and talk radio show i listen to, which pisses me off to no end. I haven't heard one word about any other candidate in 2 weeks. It's just Arnold and Grey. That's all you hear. Calling an election before the polls are closed should be WAY illegal. I'd rather we keep the First Ammendment intact, thank you very much!
Personally, I'd really like us to adopt a system of preferential voting (aka instant runoff). That would eliminate all of the strategic voting nonsense and would make third party candidates (and moderate Republicans) more viable. No chance of getting the incumbant politicians to support that one, though.
--John
P.S. Don't blame me, I voted for McClintock.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#183365 - 08/10/2003 10:17
Re: California and Arnie?
[Re: rompel]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
I'd really like us to adopt a system of preferential voting (aka instant runoff).
Definitely. That's how they do the elections over here in louisiana.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#183366 - 08/10/2003 10:42
Re: California and Arnie?
[Re: rompel]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 23/08/2000
Posts: 3826
Loc: SLC, UT, USA
|
Just thought I'd point out that Arnold appears to be getting a higher percentage of a higher turnout than Gray Davis Yup. Very interesting. more people come out to vote NOW when if they had so many issues against him they should have voted LAST Nov. But, then we were presented with Simon or Davis... blech. The really interesting stats were on the Bay Area... i think it was 80% didn't want the recall. We should have our own country. heheh. this is pretty telling.
I'd rather we keep the First Ammendment intact, thank you very much! That's all fine and good, but you have no qualm with the fact that mass media predicting an election while the polls are still open can affect the way people will vote? That fact doesn't bother you at all??
What were the concrete reasons that people didn't like Gov. Davis? I've yet to figure that out (not that I follow California politics closely). I wish i knew why the mass of people dislike him. I personally dislike his corporate pandering and flip flopping, but overall, i never had the sense that he was a horrible governer. CERTAINLY not enough to recall him. I can't pin any of the economic downturn that we've had on him... but i haven't looked into it anymore than figuring out that the power crisis stuff had nothing to do with him. The most troublesome thing i saw last night were some of the exit poll interviews... where when people were asked why they wanted Davis out... they either completely fumbled and had no answer or gave ludicrous answers like "he was responsible for that oil thing". Which goes to my point on the media giving unfair time. The more i talk to people the more i see how uneducated about this entire situation people are... myself included. It's hard as hell to have time to learn on your own about these things, so people rely on what they see on TV and hear on radio. Don't dilude yourself into thinking otherwise.
Definitely. That's how they do the elections over here in louisiana Yeah, that was one good thing about the political system of LA. Napoleonic code baby. Rock.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#183367 - 08/10/2003 10:50
Re: California and Arnie?
[Re: loren]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4180
Loc: Cambridge, England
|
That's all fine and good, but you have no qualm with the fact that mass media predicting an election while the polls are still open can affect the way people will vote? That fact doesn't bother you at all?? I guess it's dwarfed by the influence the mass media have before polling day over the way people vote...
Peter
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#183368 - 08/10/2003 11:20
Re: California and Arnie?
[Re: ]
|
old hand
Registered: 28/12/2001
Posts: 868
Loc: Los Angeles
|
> Ah, yes. Blame it on the republicans.
Yep, place blame where the blame is due and not take it out on a scapegoat.
_________________________
Ninti - MK IIa 60GB Smoke, 30GB, 10GB
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#183369 - 08/10/2003 11:30
Re: California and Arnie?
[Re: rompel]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 30/04/2000
Posts: 3810
|
Personally, I'd really like us to adopt a system of preferential voting (aka instant runoff).
Just for fun, I ran a spreadsheet against the semi-official numbers listed in the NYTimes (the table cuts-and-pastes nicely from IE into Excel). There were a total of 7.5 million votes cast. Schwarzenegger got 3.6 million of those (48%), Bustamante got 2.4 million (32%), leaving some 20% of the votes for "other" candidates. Bustamante would have needed to get virtually all of them in order to win, which would be unlikely, no matter your election system.
While I was at it, I decided to play some what-if games. If we assign all the McClintock (conservative republican) and Ueberroth (republican) votes to Schwarzenegger, and we assign all the Camejo (green) and Huffington (?) votes to Bustamante, then we've covered all the big vote getters. After that, you've got Larry Flynt and Gary Coleman. Heaven only knows how you could assign those votes, so let's leave them, and everybody else, in the "other" column. Now the totals look like this:
Schwarzenegger: 4,642,783 votes (still wins)
Bustamante: 2,651,741 votes (still nowhere close)
None-of-the-above: 214,295 votes
If you buy into my assumptions on voters for the top seven candidates, then the remaining "Cowboy Neil" voters simply aren't enough to effect the election. Pretty much no matter how you slice it, no matter what voting system you use, Arnold wins this election.
Massive caveat: they still have to count all the absentee ballots, which I read somewhere were almost 1/3 of the total cast ballots. That would mean there's another 3 million or more uncounted votes. To win the election, Bustamante would need to get upwards of 70% of those votes cast for him. That seems unlikely. On the flip side, the recall question was much closer. A disparity in the absentee ballots would be more likely to keep Davis in office than to elect Bustamante.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#183370 - 08/10/2003 11:34
Re: California and Arnie?
[Re: DWallach]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Pretty much no matter how you slice it, no matter what voting system you use, Arnold wins this election. And that's why I'm very very glad I don't live in California.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#183371 - 08/10/2003 11:50
Re: California and Arnie?
[Re: drakino]
|
member
Registered: 24/10/2000
Posts: 106
Loc: San Jose, CA
|
I'm really ambivalent about Arnold, but I do despise Gray Davis. At least the election was pretty good fuel for my daily rant
-- Gary F.
_________________________
Eeyore, Original Owner -- Mk II 80 Gb, Blue
S/N #090000803
Tigger, 2nd Owner -- Mk IIa, 80 Gb, Blue
S/N #40103789
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#183372 - 08/10/2003 11:57
Re: California and Arnie?
[Re: DWallach]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Pretty much no matter how you slice it, no matter what voting system you use, Arnold wins this election.
But if there was a runoff, then all the people who voted NO to the recall, would probably vote for Bustamante
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#183373 - 08/10/2003 12:02
Re: California and Arnie?
[Re: ]
|
addict
Registered: 20/11/2001
Posts: 455
Loc: Texas
|
But if there was a runoff, then all the people who voted NO to the recall, would probably vote for Bustamante
The numbers show that even if you voted No to the recall you still got to vote for a candidate in case Davis was recalled.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#183374 - 08/10/2003 12:06
Re: California and Arnie?
[Re: loren]
|
stranger
Registered: 26/08/2000
Posts: 44
Loc: California
|
I'd rather we keep the First Ammendment intact, thank you very much! That's all fine and good, but you have no qualm with the fact that mass media predicting an election while the polls are still open can affect the way people will vote? That fact doesn't bother you at all??
Sure, it bothers me that people are such idiots that they want to vote for a winner and not vote for a loser so much that they'll let the exit polls and media projections influence their behavior. But I'm generally bothered by the level of idiocy in the electorate.
However, what you suggest amounts to saying that there is information out there which the elites have access to but should be kept hidden from the electorate because they're too stupid to use it properly. I find that notion repugnant and totally contrary to the principles of democracy.
And, besides, Peter is right. It's not like the media aren't influencing the elections throughout the process.
I can't pin any of the economic downturn that we've had on him... but i haven't looked into it anymore than figuring out that the power crisis stuff had nothing to do with him.
The power crisis may not have been started by Davis, but I think he completely mishandled it. Even Bustamante said that he should have called the energy companies' bluff. Instead, he let it be known that California would pay any price to avoid blackouts. It's no surprise that the energy suppliers jacked the prices up into the stratosphere. Then Davis locked in those high prices with a bunch of long term contracts.
As for the budget mess, California had a huge increase in revenues due mainly to capital gains realized during the tech bubble. Instead of treating these as the short-term bonus that they were and doing something one-off like investing in infrastructure or paying down some bonds or even returning some money to the taxpayers, Davis and the legislature increased spending in ways that increased the baseline budget. Included in this were a bunch of sweetheart deals with the public-sector unions which have supported him though the years. When the revenues disappeared, we were suddenly left with a massive deficit. While I don't know enough to accurately apportion blame between Davis and the legislature, he has a line-item veto so nothing gets through without his consent.
Definitely. That's how they do the elections over here in louisiana
Hmm. I thought Louisiana featured an open primary with a run-off between the top two if nobody got over 50%.
--John
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#183375 - 08/10/2003 12:17
Re: California and Arnie?
[Re: DWallach]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 12/02/2002
Posts: 2298
Loc: Berkeley, California
|
Yup, Arnold won it fair and square. As much as the recall system is flawed in allowing a candidate to win with a plurality less than the amount of people voting against the recall, that didn't happen. Though it doesn't matter technically, Arnold got 100,000 more votes than Davis.
Matthew
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#183376 - 08/10/2003 12:29
Re: California and Arnie?
[Re: matthew_k]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 25/08/2000
Posts: 2413
Loc: NH USA
|
So you're saying this has been a Total Recall?
Ba Dumph! Thank yeew!
-Zeke
_________________________
WWFSMD?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#183377 - 08/10/2003 12:42
Re: California and Arnie?
[Re: rompel]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Hmm. I thought Louisiana featured an open primary with a run-off between the top two if nobody got over 50%.
Yeah, that's how it's done. I thought that's what you meant.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#183378 - 08/10/2003 12:42
Re: California and Arnie?
[Re: Ezekiel]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 30/04/2000
Posts: 3810
|
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#183379 - 08/10/2003 12:43
Re: California and Arnie?
[Re: blitz]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
The numbers show that even if you voted No to the recall you still got to vote for a candidate in case Davis was recalled.
Ah, ok. That makes more sense.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#183380 - 08/10/2003 13:11
Re: California and Arnie?
[Re: DWallach]
|
stranger
Registered: 26/08/2000
Posts: 44
Loc: California
|
You are assuming that everybody voted for their top choice. I'm looking at this a little differently. I strongly suspect that there are many voters who would have preferred McClintock over Arnold, but voted for Arnold because they preferred him to Bustamante. (Similarly, there are a fair number who preferred Camejo or Ariana to Cruz, but voted for Cruz because they preferred him to Arnold. This would be unlikely to change anything, however)
McClintock claims to have data indicating that he would have won if people voted for the person they most wanted for governor rather than thinking of it as a choice between the two front runners. While this claim is not implausible, I suspect you are correct that Arnold would have won under any reasonable voting system.
Now consider the 2002 CA election. If you got rid of the primary and just had a single preferential vote between Davis, Simon, Riordan, Jones, and Camejo (and the other 10 minor candidates on the primary ballot), it's my firm belief that Riordan would have won easily. And thus we could have avoided this recall in the first place.
For the Democrats in the audience (i.e. most of you), if the 2000 presidential election were held on a preferential ballot, the Nader vote would have broken at least 4:1 for Gore and Gore would have won easily.
--John
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#183381 - 08/10/2003 13:42
Re: California and Arnie?
[Re: ]
|
stranger
Registered: 26/08/2000
Posts: 44
Loc: California
|
Hmm. I thought Louisiana featured an open primary with a run-off between the top two if nobody got over 50%. Yeah, that's how it's done. I thought that's what you meant.
What I was referring to is a system where instead of voting for a single candidate, you rank the candidates in order of preference. So in yesterday's election, I might have voted McClintock > Arnold > Jim Weir > Georgy > Bustamante. There are a whole bunch of algorithms for determining a winner which usually produce the same winner in realistic scenarios, but have different behavior in various corner cases.
The simplest (but not best) method is as follows: If a candidate actually gets 50% of the first-choice votes, they win (this part is common to all methods). Otherwise, you find the candidate with the least number of first-choice votes and remove him from consideration. The candidate's name is deleted from every vote which included it--if the candidate was somebody's first choice, their second choice becomes their new first choice, etc. This process is repeated until some candidate has 50% of the first-choice votes.
The benefit of a system like this is that it is generally optimal for a voter to list the candidates in the order that they actually prefer them. You can vote for a minor candidate without "wasting" your vote, as you can still indicate a preference between the major candidates which will have as much weight as if you had not voted for the minor candidate. And, depending on exactly which algorithm is chosen, there is a good chance in a multi-candidate race that a "consensus" candidate will be found the winner.
--John
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#183382 - 08/10/2003 14:22
Re: California and Arnie?
[Re: CrackersMcCheese]
|
new poster
Registered: 12/08/2003
Posts: 3
|
Fihst off, I want to staht by saying thank you to all of my suppohtahs and campaignahs, without whom my victory would not have been possible. To those who said it couldn't be done, what you say now?
My first act as govenah of California will be to tehminate all of the democrats who played dihty political tricks by mentioning my groping of women. My second act will be to grope as many women as possible. Applications for gropees will be available in the Govenah's office. Aftah that, don't expect to see much of me, because the Govenah campaign is just a stepping stone to my goal to become President and tehminate the entire country!
Asta la vista, baby!
_________________________
-----------------------------
You have been erased.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#183383 - 08/10/2003 14:42
Re: California and Arnie?
[Re: Foz]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31602
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
my daily rant Interesting rant! Except the part where you said:
Since I didn’t vote, I’m not going to venture an opinion one way or the other about Governor Schwarzeneggar. .... and then proceeded to give opinions about both Gray and Arnie.
Don't get me wrong, I think they were interesting opinions and worth reading. I just didn't expect them to appear after you made that statement.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#183384 - 08/10/2003 14:55
Re: California and Arnie?
[Re: CrackersMcCheese]
|
member
Registered: 25/10/1999
Posts: 149
|
What are your views if you live there?
I don't live in California. But the kind and amount of coverage we get here in Austria about a foreign election is irritating.
_________________________
_______
Thomas
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#183385 - 08/10/2003 14:57
Re: California and Arnie?
[Re: rompel]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 30/04/2000
Posts: 3810
|
I strongly suspect that there are many voters who would have preferred McClintock over Arnold, but voted for Arnold because they preferred him to Bustamante.
We'll never know for sure, but it's probably fair to assume that in any sort of ranking system, more people would put Arnold ahead of McClintock than vice versa. That's why, in my hypothetical exercise, I added McClintock's votes to Arnold. Likewise for adding Huffington's votes to Bustamante.
Regardless, I still support the idea of a non-traditional voting system. I've mentioned it here before, but my favorite is approval voting. You can cast votes for as many candidates as you want (zero or one vote per candidate), and all those votes count equally. You can vote for Arnold and McClintock. You can vote for Nader and Gore. You don't get to express your rankings among your choices, but you do get rid of the incentive to vote "strategically" rather than for your true preferences.
The arguments against multiple voting systems with ranking tend to be that they still encourage strategic voting in some form or another. Your second and third choices can start to have a serious impact on the election's outcome, and it's entirely unclear whether voters can meaningfully rank all their candidates. Also, on an entirely practical level, approval voting requires only one bit per candidate, so it meshes nicely with most existing voting equipment, including punch cards.
My fear, in an approval voting system, is that a plurality of Californians would have cast a "serious" vote plus some "joke" votes, just for fun, and then you'd end up with a porn star for governor.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#183386 - 08/10/2003 15:13
Re: California and Arnie?
[Re: DWallach]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I'd hardly call her a star. She's only been in 31 movies and the vast majority of those appearances have been lesbian-only scenes. She's barely a starlet. To be honest, I'm pretty sure that neither I nor my porn-addicted friends had ever heard of her before her candidacy.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#183387 - 08/10/2003 15:49
Re: California and Arnie?
[Re: DWallach]
|
stranger
Registered: 26/08/2000
Posts: 44
Loc: California
|
Regardless, I still support the idea of a non-traditional voting system. I've mentioned it here before, but my favorite is approval voting. You can cast votes for as many candidates as you want (zero or one vote per candidate), and all those votes count equally. You can vote for Arnold and McClintock. You can vote for Nader and Gore. You don't get to express your rankings among your choices, but you do get rid of the incentive to vote "strategically" rather than for your true preferences.
I disagree with that last statement. Suppose there are three candidates A, B, and C where I love A, am OK with B, and hate C. Clearly I would vote for A and not for C. But my decision on B depends on whether I think C has any chance of winning and on whether I think A has any chance of winning. For example, if the polls are showing 20/40/40, I will vote for B. If the polls are showing 40/40/20, I won't. If the polls are 33/33/33 then I have to decide whether I love A more or less than I fear C. That seems a lot like strategic voting to me.
--John
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#183388 - 08/10/2003 16:18
Re: California and Arnie?
[Re: tfabris]
|
member
Registered: 24/10/2000
Posts: 106
Loc: San Jose, CA
|
Actually, you'd be incorrect. My opinioin was about the hypocrisy of the campaign... as well as observations on character. Not once did I say "yes, I think arnie is the right man" or "no, I think davis is a great governor" etc.
I never excused myself from having opinions about the people as individuals. I even went on to say I really have no idea whether he'll be a good governor or not (and for the record, I CAN rant about davis, because I did vote against him last time  )
-- Gary
_________________________
Eeyore, Original Owner -- Mk II 80 Gb, Blue
S/N #090000803
Tigger, 2nd Owner -- Mk IIa, 80 Gb, Blue
S/N #40103789
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#183389 - 08/10/2003 23:26
Re: California and Arnie?
[Re: rompel]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 30/04/2000
Posts: 3810
|
The trick with non-standard voting schemes is that the art of polling gets completely shaken up. When you can cast more than one vote, the polls won't add to 100% any more. Instead, assuming you had amazing polls that were able to get the full state of how voters would vote, and if you were using approval voting, then there would be some ability to vote strategically. If your top two candidates are tied, you could choose not to give any preference to your #2 pick, with all the risks that some unforseen event could render that a bad choice.
Indubitably, the presence of polls has a radical effect on the electorate. I wonder sometime whether polls "predicting" a strong showing by a candidate can create one, as people get on board with the winner or lower-valued candidates are convinced they should drop from the race.
There are a pile of papers linked from the sites I mentioned above. If I get a spare couple days, I'll try to read them all over. The mathematics of these systems have been studied for quite a long time...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#183390 - 09/10/2003 05:27
Re: California and Arnie?
[Re: DWallach]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
All this talk about polling reminds me of an Asimov short story where computers (or the infamous Multivac, actually) get so good predicting polls that it can do it after only one "vote" by a single person. This "vote" turns out to be more of just sharing his understanding and feelings on a variety of topics with the computer. Talk about a bit of pressure though!
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index