posted
If Gray Davis resigned and gave up the job of governor of California, what would happen?
I'm not too clear on the political ramifications of this, but wouldn't his Lieutenant Governor take over? And wouldn't this nullify the recall, since the first question would be moot?
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good point, FC. I would assume that his Lt. Governor would take over, but probably only temporarily. Then they'd have a special election to fill the vacancy.. Too tired to goooogle it. Besides, what fun would that be?
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I understand, it wouldn't matter. The recall, once begun, has to continue until a new governor is elected. We were wondering what would happen if Davis waited til 4 days before the election, screamed "Ha!" and stepped down, but it wouldn't change anything.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, then would the ballots have to be reprinted? The first question being whether to keep the lieutenant governor?
Speaking of the idiocy that is New Jersey politics, when Toricelli saw that he was likely to lose, he dropped out of the race at the last minute and was replaced. They had to reprint all the ballots with the name of his replacement, who subsequently won.
Could the Democrats do this again? Could Davis resign, be temporarily replaced by a party appointee, then have *that* person be the name on the first half of the ballot?
It seems par for the Dems recent political course to make an attempt at something like that, at least from here in NJ.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whether or not to keep the lieutenant governor is not a question in this. In California, the lt. gov. is elected separately from the governor, not on a linked ticket, as we do with the president and vice-president. In fact, the fact that the gov. and lt. gov. are both of the same party is fairly unusual - we've had a habit in the past of often electing the governor from one party and the lt. gov. from another. Which I don't think is a half-bad idea, as it keeps the governor in line and attending to business.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not so much a matter of whether CA keeps its lt.gov. but of whether this switcheroo could have any serious political effect.
The ballots ask specifically if Gray Davis should be removed from office. If Gray Davis resigned from office, that question would be moot. The second question asks who you would replace him with. The second question, in order to have any validity, requires a "replace him" vote for the first question. Which would be moot.
So, if Gray Davis resigns now, would the recall itself become moot?
Or, would the ballots have to be reprinted so that the first question asks "should (fill in lt.gov. name here) be recalled?" Which makes it a far different question.
And is that a question that really needs to be asked? The recall was because of the poor job Davis is doing, not because of the poor job the lt.gov. is doing. They didn't recall him. So, if he were gov, would the recall even be necessary?
So, in legal terms (for any of you out there... BobTheLawyer, perhaps?) would the resignation of Gray Davis nullify the recall? Or delay it considerably? I'd imagine a case could easily be made.
posted
Gray Davis isn't going to resign, he's trying to delay the recall until March so that he can find a way to get his name on the ballot. Apparently he hasn't caught on that they're having the recall because they DON'T want him to be governor.
posted
If Gray Davis resigns, screwing up the California election, I'm sorry but I'm just going to laugh. I'm laughing as it is because of how much its screwed up and now Arnold is running? Ughh, its too much for me. I'm sorry, I know that people's lives depend on a solution but I can't stop laughing, its how I get over Florida's screwups.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Flying Cow I just wanted to take the time to tell you that I saw your work in the movie Twister and I thought you were brilliant.
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
CBS News reported today that a poll just out shows 54% of California voters are in favor of voting to recall Davis, and only 35% are opposed to the recall.
Davis is doomed. Arnold Schwarzenegger is destined to become the "Governator" of California.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This state was hit hardest when the tech bubble burst. I'm not going to say that Gray Davis was the most competent of all governors in the history of the Union, but I believe in his basic decency, though he may lack the principled leadership to spur economic growth. The times call for savory and Gray Davis is tofu, but I feel that the terribly powerful prison union is more of a threat to the welfare of the state of California than the continuity of Gray Davis' term. The man has been an affective civil servant for decades, and I think that the California economy is going through pains because of the previously bloated budgets and a false belief in the stability of the tech industry.
Yes, California needs some help, and I don't think anyone knows that more keenly than Gray Davis.
posted
Thanks for the link, Livious! I knew someone had to have taken this into account. They probably built in some clause to the recall laws for just that eventuality.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a CA resident, I am appalled at this waste of money. As Jerry Brown recently said, when asked if he would throw his hat in the ring, in a radio interview: "...you just can't win".
The continuing problem in California politics is unrelenting partisanism. And the problem is mainly in the legislature.
Arnold says he's "...going to clean house." Just what the heck does he mean by that? He won't say. When asked about a specific strategy--he evades.
Nothing will change. And the Republicans have promised that, if this works, they are coming to a state near you. This is not compromise and democracy, it is an attempt at a coup d'etat.
Posts: 2506 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, it is not an attempt at a coup d'etat. The people are the state, not the public servants who hold office. It is a right of the people to fire public servants when the people deem their service to be unsatisfactory. Recalling public officials is perfectly legal and a proper part of democracy.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Who decides what order the candidates' names will appear in?
On all California ballots, candidates are grouped by party, then listed in randomized alphabetical order. The randomization process (which involves film cartridges in a lottery-style contraption) might determine, for example, that all candidates whose last names start with the letter "H" will be listed first. But even within the H's, names will be further randomized according to the second letter, and then the third, and so on. Which means hypothetical candidate Hzyzitz might be listed before her hypothetical rivals Hzan and Hart, and recall voters searching through countless names won't have an alphabetical order to guide them.
And people wonder why voters get confused.
That has to be the most inane thing I've seen in a while.
Right up till I read this, of course.
quote: State law says Davis can't put his name on the second half of the ballot. Could California voters write in his name?
According to California's Elections Code, Section 11320-11327, there must be a line for write-in votes in the list of candidates on the ballot. But these votes will count only if the name written in is that of a registered candidate—so unless Davis wins his suit to be allowed to run, he still can't win this way.
Man, that State is all screwed up. One wonders, with all the liberal hippies, how in the world there are so many Republians nominees.
quote: No, it is not an attempt at a coup d'etat. The people are the state, not the public servants who hold office
Per Webster's:
quote: The sudden, forcible overthrow as of a ruler.
Semantics, I admit. But used correctly, although perhaps a bit dramatic. My intention was to point out that there are people in special interest groups, like Republicans (though not all Republicans), that are using any means possible to subvert their politcal enemies. If they don't win an election, you can bet they'll be out there asking for further signatures until they have someone in office that they control.
And I am not a Democrat. I am an independant that would just like the public to vote their conscience. What's killing this state is lack of cooperation, caused by party politics. No one person, i.e. the Governor, can solve this mess, so the recall is really a moot point.
Posts: 2506 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: If the recall succeeds by a simple majority (more than half of those who vote), then the new governor, effective immediately, is whichever replacement candidate wins a plurality. In other words, Davis could win 49 percent of the vote on question 1, but be replaced by someone who receives only 15 or 20 percent of the vote on question 2. Very democratic
Yup. That pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter.
posted
NewFoundLogic, why is it funny that Arnold is running? He is not some newbie to politics, or a mindless movie star or weight lifter. Before Arnold was famous for showbusiness, he was a frontrunner millionaire entrepeneur. He was a political activist, and one of the key figures behind the passage of proposition 13 that saved so many homes in California. For a while he served as President Bush Sr.'s national physical fitness advisor also. Arnold is brilliant, honest and still very politically savvy. You should not pass judgment on people when you clearly do not understand the facts.
Posts: 622 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will be very suprised if only 15 to 20% of eligible voters actually turn out to vote.
If you mean that, because of the large field of candidates, the winning candidate wins with 15 to 20 percent of the vote, then I see nothing wrong with that. That's just the way it's going to break down when you have a large field of candidates to vote for, and I for one think it's a good thing. Bob willing some real campaign reform will actually come to pass and third parties can actually viably promote their candidates.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stormy, yeah, I mean the second. Theoretically, if every single registered California voter actually went to the polls, 7,449,000 people could vote to keep Gray Davis, 7,500,000 could vote to oust him and he'd be gone.
However, he's not allowed to be on the ballot, so everyone has to vote for someone "just in case."
So, 3 million voters vote Arnold in and nearly 7.5 million wanted to keep Gray in. This is one of the largest economies in the world. And the voters seem to have little choice in the matter.
I certainly hope they manage to get things "unscrewed up."
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's actually kind of interesting to me is a comment I found on NRO from a Democratic high muckety muck. You hear a lot about how unpopular Gray is in polls, but he mentioned that, actually, Gray Davis is *more* popular than almost anyone in either the California senate, or the house. I'm not sure whether he meant the house and senate as a whole, or seperately, but either way, I thought that was a pretty fascinating piece of information since it indicates that California voters aren't *just* pissed at Gray Davis, but pretty much the whole shooting match.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I find truly scary is that the new governor may easily get less than 10 percent of the vote.
With 193 possible candidates, and the votes evenly split, the governor could theoretically be elected by 0.52 percent of the voters. Even if 49 percent of the voters wanted Davis to stay in.
This whole thing is gettng so surreal...
Posts: 2473 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you Storm Saxon! I am way too verbose to put it so succinctly (on this subject, anyway.).
Posts: 2506 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Somehow I doubt the vote will be evenly split. Will Gary Coleman net more votes than Schwartzeneggar? No. Will it be close? No. Larry Flynt? No. The 170 or so candidates no one's even heard of? Probably not.
The whole thing is going to come down to maybe 4 or 5 actual candidates. If that. The rest are just people with 3,500 dollars and a dream. It's like lotto on a grand scale.... maybe next CA will let illegal immigrants run in recalls once they have their official drivers' licenses. Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eslaine, I am sure that Webster had more than that in its entry for coup d'etat. The phrase is French and means literally "blow at the state."
Yeah, it would be interesting if the president were subject to recall. At present, only the U.S. Senate can recall him, in the impeachment process. Of course, having the president and his administration subject to popular recall would make things similar to what the British have with their frequent "votes of confidence." Most Americans tend to view this as making the administration too weak and vulnerable, hamstringing it with fearfulness of losing power, so it is unable to pursue unpopular policies that might actually be wise.
Andrew, you're absolutely right. With nearly 200 names on the ballot, and a candidate being allowed to win on a plurality of the vote, you could have the winner getting a fraction of a percent of the total vote! They should mandate at least 30%, or maybe even a majority of votes cast, with runoff elections until they get it.
Imagine how complicated that California ballot is going to be. And it won't be alphabetized, so people will have to read down through a long list to find Arnold Schwarzenegger's name so they can vote for him. It could be anywhere in the list.
Shades of West Palm Beach, Florida, and the "butterfly" ballot.
What if someone demands a recount, and every vote has to be verified by hand?
And if some people tried to write in Arnold Schwarzenegger's name, and they're doing a manual recount, imagine the conversations: "No, that can't be allowed as a vote for Schwarzenegger, they left out a 'g,'" or "they put in a 't.'" Hanging chads would pale by comparison.
[ August 12, 2003, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
n : a sudden and decisive change of government illegally or by force [syn: coup, putsch, takeover]
The sudden overthrow of a government by a usually small group of persons in or previously in positions of authority.
[French : coup, blow, stroke + de, of + état, state.]
A sudden stroke; an unexpected device or stratagem; -- a term used in various ways to convey the idea of promptness and force.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
