California Recall - True Democracy [Archive]

trumptman

08-11-2003, 07:19 AM

I was sitting here reading about the California recall and I began to think about the hypocracy of some regarding it. Likely the most ardent supporters of Gray Davis or at a minimum those declaring the recall a sham would likely be the first ones who would declare that we could never have true democracy.

Here we have a process that has generated a wide array of candidates, over 100. It required a $3500 filing fee and a few signatures. It isn't controlled by two parties. Anyone and literally everyone can find a way to run.

There isn't a primary closed off to voters of one or another party. There isn't some arcane process keeping all sorts of third parties from getting a foothold, running one or even muliple candidates.

In short it is everything that someone would complain about regarding a regular election.

I think it will be interesting to see how this little experiment turns out. It might lead to some serious general election changes.

From California, land of the free and the freaks,

Nick

applenut

08-11-2003, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by trumptman

From California, land of the free and the freaks,

Nick

and the fruits and nuts

08-11-2003, 09:52 AM

I would rather see this in the regular elections. The point is that people who didn't even vote in the election shouldn't be allowed to recall the governor by signing something outside a Ralphs.

Of course, if you like this so much, would you like to see this nationwide?

Outsider

08-11-2003, 10:09 AM

I think only 13 people out of the 480 or so have gone through entirely with the gubernatorial candidate process, and that number probably wont go over 15 by the deadline so it's not really as bad as the media is making it out to be. it's not like you'll go into the booth and have 500 levers or so to choose from.

billybobsky

08-11-2003, 10:10 AM

whenever i see the word true followed by a noun, its hard for me not to chuckle with the thought of trreeeew luv, or in this case trreeeew democraczy.

the point is that any system where it requires less than the majority to induce a recall spasm is not a democratic form of government. that aside, yes the current pool of canidates places a strange but broad face on this farce, and as BR has said I would have like to have seen this in a real election.

shetline

08-11-2003, 10:13 AM

Escape from the control of the two party system is a nice way to open up democracy.

The lack of any system for a run-off election is not, however, good for democracy.

With such a wide array of candidates, the winner of this election (presuming Davis is booted) is likely to be someone that most people voted against. The winner could even take the governor's office with only 10% of the vote.

Suppose candidates A, B, C, D, E and F have a few differences, but all come reasonably close to being at least acceptable to the majority of voters. Candidate G comes along, who has some wildly enthusiastic supporters, but he's not just unacceptable, he's repugnant to the majority.

The election is held, A-F garner around 10% of the vote each, G gets 15%, and the remaining 25% is split among other candidates. Now, thanks to this "democratic" process, your next governor is someone that most voters hate even more than Gray Davis.

The way this should be done is that if no one garners more than 50% of the vote, the top two candidates then compete against each other in a run-off election. Having a run-off wouldn't necessarily make the system "perfect", but it would at least greatly increase the odds of the electoral process reflecting the will of the electorate to a higher degree.

Even without going to such an extreme as my hypothetical example, I'd say there's a good chance this election will turn out such that more people vote to keep Davis than vote for any one of the replacement candidates. If 35% of the voters want to keep Davis, he loses his office, and is replaced by someone who only gets 30% of the vote, how democratic is that?

sammi jo

08-11-2003, 02:13 PM

[i]

From California, land of the free and the freaks,

Nick [/B]

Please don't forget Enron, Duke and all the other energy mafia middle-men scumball parasites who committed massive fraud while bilking California out of $$$$ BILLIONS.....and these criminals are still living high on the hog and will undoubtedly escape prosecution. They are one of the prime causes of California's financial ruin.

Regarding candidates, even though he has no chance of winning, Peter Camejo of the Green Party gets my vote for the simple reason that former governor Ronald Reagan regarded him as "one of the most dangerous men in America", which means (Camejo) must be on the right track.

running with scissors

08-11-2003, 03:07 PM

the way i see it is they elected him, they should be stuck with him until the end of his term. this "i want to take my vote back" bullshit, doesn't sit to well with me.

trumptman

08-11-2003, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by running with scissors
the way i see it is they elected him, they should be stuck with him until the end of his term. this "i want to take my vote back" bullshit, doesn't sit to well with me.

If only it were that simple.

Davis spends to select Republican candidate (http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/election/nov2002/opinions/j08hardball.htm)

Riordan falls thanks to Davis (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/2/24/212503.shtml)

Davis spent more than Riordan or Simon in the REPUBICAN primary. Davis was unopposed but spent millions to distort the record of Riordan who is a very moderate Republican. He is pro-choice and pro-homosexual and that scared the hell out of Davis. So Davis decided to pick who he would run against. He unleashed more spending on negative ads about Riordan during the Republican primary than both candidates spent campaigning combined.

Likewise Davis intentionally covered up and lied about the size of the deficit. Right after the election in suddenly doubled in size from a supposed 20 billion which had already been addressed (more like shifted and hidden) to 38 billion.

Lastly we have this...by Sammi Jo

Please don't forget Enron, Duke and all the other energy mafia middle-men scumball parasites who committed massive fraud while bilking California out of $$$$ BILLIONS.....and these criminals are still living high on the hog and will undoubtedly escape prosecution. They are one of the prime causes of California's financial ruin.

Davis received the campaign contributions from them. Davis signed the expensive long term contracts with them, and also Davis signed the bond bill that bailed out the "bankrupt" arms of the electrical companies that had the parents turning profits.

In otherwords when he could have stood up against them, he instead colluded with them. I'm sure if Bush had done what Davis did, you would see how signing contracts with the evil power companies is a sign of "ding, ding, ding" that's right folks... helping them.

Nick

running with scissors

08-11-2003, 04:58 PM

if he broke the law, that's one thing, but it seems to me that everyone is just whining about the sorry state of the economy and just looking for someone to scapegoat.

trumptman

08-11-2003, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by running with scissors
if he broke the law, that's one thing, but it seems to me that everyone is just whining about the sorry state of the economy and just looking for someone to scapegoat.

I wouldn't say he has broken the law in a way you could prosecute. That is why there is the recall. Likewise political parties have sort of agreements that amount to etiquette. They aren't written down per se. One of them is, you pick your candidate, we pick our candidate, then the gloves are on and so is the fight. Davis intervened in the Republican party and took out the candidate he was likely to lose to. It was the first recorded time an incumbent ran ads during the opposing parties primary. Every other time they just sat on the cash and waited to spend it for the general campaign.

A good example of this is Dean on the Democratic side. Dean is painted quite moderate by some. He supports gun rights, things of that nature.

Could you imagine Bush unleashing about 30 million of ads on Dean right now and on top of it if he distorted Dean's views?!? How would 30 million of "Dean wants to put guns in the hands of criminals" play during the early part of the primary?

It isn't illegal, but it isn't letting a party get their best foot forward ideologically and candidate-wise as well.

Likewise the lying about the budget. It isn't a prosecutable offense but the accounting gimmicks and shifting got him just past the election and then he came clean.

Nick

bunge

08-11-2003, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by billybobsky
the point is that any system where it requires less than the majority to induce a recall spasm is not a democratic form of government.

I just thought that this was an important point that got ignored. The Recall is not 'True Democracy' if this is the case.

running with scissors

08-11-2003, 06:25 PM

i'm not going to dispute what davis did or didn't do. i just don't have enough info to form an opinion one way or another, and frankly i don't care. but i do care that someone in an ellected office can conceivably be forced into a recall by a group of bitter opposition that, as has been pointed out, have less than a majority. gee, i can't see that being abused.

shetline

08-11-2003, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by running with scissors
but i do care that someone in an ellected office can conceivably be forced into a recall by a group of bitter opposition that, as has been pointed out, have less than a majority. gee, i can't see that being abused.
The interesting question becomes if it's possible to have a meaningful recall system that's not too open to abuse.

On the one hand, following the California model, an abusive but well-organized opposition minority could force recall elections on the incumbent any time their favored candidate failed to become that incumbent, so long as they can meet the number of signatures required, which is well below a majority. Even if the recall were doomed to fail, the opposition would be able to abuse the process to bludgeon the incumbent.

On the other hand, how do you check to see if there's a majority supporting the recall before having the recall election? It would be a bit silly to have a vote on whether or not there was going to be a recall vote, and besides, that indirection would only beg the question of how you decide to put the vote for the recall vote on the ballot.

I think the best you could do, with only slight tinkering with the current system, is raise the required signature count higher. Expecting the required count to actually reach as high as a majority of the registered voters would be way too stringent, however -- after all, petitions are generally small samples of the electorate only, and this process doesn't actually remove any elected officials, it merely put the question of their removal up for a vote.

Where the magic signature number should be, I'm not sure. I think for recalling a duly elected official the required number of petition signatures should have to meet a higher standard than what's require for other ballot initiatives, perhaps even as high as 10-20% of the registered electorate.

I can see other possibilities:

Official sampling polls -- done like opinion polls -- to roughly gauge public sentiment for a recall. A strong measured desire for a recall would be required, as high a 75%, to put a recall on the ballot. (Just brainstorming -- probably a dumb idea.)
Allowing counter-petitions to block petitions for recall elections. These would probably have to be held to a higher signature count standard than the original recall petitions.
Require a 75% legislative vote to put a recall on the ballot.

At any rate, I think the worst part about the current recall system in not how the incumbent is voted out, but the no-runoff system that can replace the ousted incumbent with a winner who receives an under-50% (perhaps greatly under) share of the vote.

bunge

08-11-2003, 09:29 PM

Do people really think this recall is worth this (http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/recall_costs.htm) much money?

Moogs

08-11-2003, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by sammi jo
Please don't forget Enron, Duke and all the other energy mafia middle-men scumball parasites who committed massive fraud while bilking California out of $$$$ BILLIONS.....and these criminals are still living high on the hog and will undoubtedly escape prosecution.

Enron executives are not subject to the laws of the land. They'd pretty much have to off someone in a public square to be in danger of prosecution.

trumptman

08-11-2003, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by bunge
Do people really think this recall is worth this (http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/recall_costs.htm) much money?

55 million, when the state is spending a billion more a month than it takes in?!?

A drop in the bucket to stop the flood.

Nick

Dale Sorel

08-12-2003, 02:08 AM

Originally posted by trumptman
...we could never have true democracy.

Do you know what a "true democracy" is? It's when you have four men and one woman and you take a vote to see if the woman should be raped. In other words, it's mob rule :rolleyes:

Buy a clue :lol:

trumptman

08-12-2003, 03:09 AM

Originally posted by Dale Sorel
Do you know what a "true democracy" is? It's when you have four men and one woman and you take a vote to see if the woman should be raped. In other words, it's mob rule :rolleyes:

Buy a clue :lol:

Well thank you for your definition. I hope never to have my anus in company around you when a group is deciding what movie to watch. That whole mob rule thing you subscribe to just doesn't gel well with me.

Nick

LiquidR

08-12-2003, 03:19 AM

originally posted by running with scissors
the way i see it is they elected him, they should be stuck with him until the end of his term. this "i want to take my vote back" bullshit, doesn't sit to well with me.

Great idea if CA were a closed system, but since their system is interlocked with the rest of the nation, more closely with those states surrounding it, the ineptness of the leadership in CA would idirectly affect the rest of the nation.

running with scissors

08-12-2003, 10:29 AM

not saying it doesn't suck, but tough shit. you can blame the opposition for not running a better candidate or a better campaign during the last election. look, times are tough all over. name me a state one that hasn't taken it up the ass in this economy. you can't, and you can't pin it all on davis even if he is as big of a schmuck as is being claimed. are you going to recall every elected official who passed spending legislation as well in the california house and senate. where does it end. if there was fraud, abuse of power, and you can prove it, fine. but the facts tend to get a blurred as these kinds of things get going and it all becomes a witch hunt to please mob mentality.

trumptman

08-12-2003, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by running with scissors
not saying it doesn't suck, but tough shit. you can blame the opposition for not running a better candidate or a better campaign during the last election. look, times are tough all over. name me a state one that hasn't taken it up the ass in this economy. you can't, and you can't pin it all on davis even if he is as big of a schmuck as is being claimed. are you going to recall every elected official who passed spending legislation as well in the california house and senate. where does it end. if there was fraud, abuse of power, and you can prove it, fine. but the facts tend to get a blurred as these kinds of things get going and it all becomes a witch hunt to please mob mentality.

Scissors, why would you tell Californians, tough shit about their own state matters when your butt is kickin' it in Texas.

Likewise the recall requires a certain percentage of signatures based off how many people voted in the last election. If Davis hadn't blasted the best candidate out of the primary, then run a profoundly negative campaign totally devoid of ideas, maybe we wouldn't have had a record low turnout and then it would have require a real number of signatures to recall him.

So I guess it is just the chickens coming back to roost. Give the people nothing to vote for, watch them not vote and then watch it bite you in the butt via the recall.

As for the economy causing California to take it in the ass, the growth of spending went past any reasonable explanation. The rate of spending growth nearly doubled even accounting for population growth, inflation and other necessary growth factors. It is just out of control.

Nick

Anders

08-12-2003, 11:30 AM

California Recall - True Democracy

Total Recall - True lies?

Was that intended trumptman?

agent302

08-12-2003, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by trumptman
55 million, when the state is spending a billion more a month than it takes in?!?

A drop in the bucket to stop the flood.

Nick That's an implied assumption that the origins of all of California's problems reside in the governor's office. I think we have good empirical examples of the effectiveness of an executive's agenda when the legislature is controlled by the opposition (read: the Clinton Administration), and I think it's fairly clear that California does not a very bipartisan political environment. So that the chance of a new Republican governor of creating much headway is not likely.

running with scissors

08-12-2003, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by trumptman
Scissors, why would you tell Californians, tough shit about their own state matters when your butt is kickin' it in Texas.

just because a few oil barons from texas made money off of you guys doesn't mean that same money has trickled down in to my pockets. be nice though if it had. texas isn't exactly lighting the world on fire with it's economy. this market is hurting just about everyone especially in my industry, design/advertising. if they don't make money, we don't work.

Likewise the recall requires a certain percentage of signatures based off how many people voted in the last election. If Davis hadn't blasted the best candidate out of the primary, then run a profoundly negative campaign totally devoid of ideas, maybe we wouldn't have had a record low turnout and then it would have require a real number of signatures to recall him.

So I guess it is just the chickens coming back to roost. Give the people nothing to vote for, watch them not vote and then watch it bite you in the butt via the recall.

that's politics for you. again, the opposition should have mounted a better campaign. you can also blame the republican party for not wanting to spend any GOP money in a state that routinley leans heavily on the liberal side of political life. "why waste the money" they said and left you high and dry.

As for the economy causing California to take it in the ass, the growth of spending went past any reasonable explanation. The rate of spending growth nearly doubled even accounting for population growth, inflation and other necessary growth factors. It is just out of control.

then why not go after the guys that control the purse strings. davis can only spend what the state will give him.

agent302

08-12-2003, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by running with scissors
texas isn't exactly lighting the world on fire with it's economy. this market is hurting just about everyone especially in my industry, design/advertising. if they don't make money, we don't work. I think you make an excellent point here (even if you didn't mean to). The perils of the California economy are not unique to California. There is still a national economic problem, so to scapegoat Davis and assume that Schwarzenegger or Simon or any other gubernatorial hopeful can turn this situation around ignores the larger issue of U.S. economic problems.

running with scissors

08-12-2003, 12:30 PM

agent302

08-12-2003, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by running with scissors
of course i meant to, it was part of my master plan agent302. and i would have gotten away with it had not been for you and those meddling kids. by the way, would you care for a cucumber sandwich agent302? I'll take 3.

Dale Sorel

08-12-2003, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by trumptman
Well thank you for your definition.

You're welcome :)

de·moc·ra·cy (d?-m?k?r?-s?)_Pronunciation Key

n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

See number four :\

trumptman

08-12-2003, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Dale Sorel
You're welcome :)

See number four :\

I thought you meant number 6: Mob rule, or 7: Gang rape.:no:

Nick

trumptman

08-12-2003, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by agent302
I think you make an excellent point here (even if you didn't mean to). The perils of the California economy are not unique to California. There is still a national economic problem, so to scapegoat Davis and assume that Schwarzenegger or Simon or any other gubernatorial hopeful can turn this situation around ignores the larger issue of U.S. economic problems.

Actually they are unique to California. California's deficit is larger than the other 49 states combined. Likewise the problem goes well beyond a national recession or the stock market sinking.

The numbers that made it most relevent to me were these. State spending with inflation, population increases, etc. would have had to go up 21% just to keep pace. Revenues went up 25%, which mean we really should not have had a deficit if we just kept our financial house in order. However spending went up 43%.

That is an issue that is local, not national.

Nick

BRussell

08-12-2003, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by trumptman
Actually they are unique to California. California's deficit is larger than the other 49 states combined. Likewise the problem goes well beyond a national recession or the stock market sinking.It's also the largest state economy in the US. Does it really have a larger deficit as a percent of its economy than all the other states? I sincerely doubt it.

And Bush's deficit is larger as a percent of the US economy than California's deficit is as a percent of its economy. Recall Bush! Gary Coleman for president!

Chinney

08-12-2003, 04:37 PM

Is a recall a true democractic process? I am not sure that it is.

Question: Suppose that a few months after Schwarzenagger is elected, opponents who don't like him (perhaps, if for nothing else, his wooden acting style) get the few signatures necessary to trigger a recall. The whole circus starts again. Maybe then Californians can elect Donald Duck. But then anti-Disney activists could get a few signatures and mount another recall....

agent302

08-12-2003, 05:12 PM

What BRussell said. California's decifit is larger than the rest of the Union's because it makes up a disproportionately large part of the national economy. If it was an independent nation, California would be the 4th or 5th largest economy in the world.

And Chinney asks an interesting question. The recall is not democracy; it's populism in the most basic form.

trumptman

08-12-2003, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by BRussell
It's also the largest state economy in the US. Does it really have a larger deficit as a percent of its economy than all the other states? I sincerely doubt it.

And Bush's deficit is larger as a percent of the US economy than California's deficit is as a percent of its economy. Recall Bush! Gary Coleman for president!

Yeah I'm sure all the other states have their governmental bonds at two steps above junk status.

Bonds downgraded again (http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/california/story/7166288p-8113482c.html)

Then we have this...

Federal Budget Surpluses and Deficits

The largest annual U.S. federal budget deficit, as a percentage of gross domestic product, was at the height of World War II when it hit 30.3% of GDP.

By comparison, the federal budget deficit for 2004 as a percentage of GDP is estimated at 2.7% of GDP.

During the 70 years between 1934 and 2004, there have been 12 budget years in which the federal budget has had an annual surplus.

(SOURCE: U.S. Department of the Treasury)

As for the California deficit as a percentage of gross state product, I have tried numerous Goggle searches but haven't found it.

Not only was the California state deficit larger than all the other states deficits, it was larger than all their BUDGETS. I know California is large, but New York is no small potatoes. (it is in the top 10 of world economies last I checked.)

Nick

agent302

08-12-2003, 06:27 PM

I think you underestimate the role of the tech sector and the dotcom bust with regard to California's economy. While the tech bust had a major effect on the national economy, it probably had a much greater effect in California because that's where most of the tech companies were located. A good example is the fact that while unemployment nationwide is currently at 6.2%, in Santa Clara County it's closer to 8 or 9%. You're ignoring a lot of extraneous factors that put the state economy in the situation it now resides.

trumptman

08-12-2003, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by Chinney
Is a recall a true democractic process? I am not sure that it is.

Question: Suppose that a few months after Schwarzenagger is elected, opponents who don't like him (perhaps, if for nothing else, his wooden acting style) get the few signatures necessary to trigger a recall. The whole circus starts again. Maybe then Californians can elect Donald Duck. But then anti-Disney activists could get a few signatures and mount another recall....

I like how 1.6 million signatures is a "few."

Likewise...

Two new polls, which show strong support for the recall, suggest Davis' strategy may not be working. A USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll found that 64 percent of registered voters now support the recall, and a poll by NBC found 59 percent would vote to recall the governor. Both polls found higher support for the recall than was reflected in public polls conducted before last week's flurry of announcements from recall candidates.

Unless 59-64% of Californians are Republicans (laughable to even suggest) then this is well beyond partisan politics.

Recall (http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/6513667.htm)

I like this part best..

Bustamante released five years of tax returns Monday. In 2002, he earned $117,685 and gave $105 to charity.

What is with the lack of compassion Mr. Bustamente?!? I earn half that and give more than that to charity EVERY MONTH. Maybe when liberals assume hardheartedness and an unwillingness to help others, it is because they assume how they would act.

Nick

chu_bakka

08-12-2003, 06:33 PM

It's funny how conservatives banged the "balance the budget" drum for so long and now that it's in their lap they try to downplay it.

SO which is it? High deficits ARE a big deal. Or only if it's a certain percentage of GDP? Or it's only applicable if there's a deficit under a democratic governor?

And the last time I checked... Bush had NO plan to get the deficit under control.

Shawn

08-12-2003, 06:59 PM

True Democracy?

Ralph Nader describes it as "a recall qualified by Republican multimillionaires to set up other Republican multimillionaires as candidates to replace the incumbent, Gray Davis."

According to Ralph Nader in "Make The Recall Count" (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0812-06.htm):
Certainly, this is not the kind of direct democracy to hold incumbents accountable between elections that California Gov. Hiram Johnson had in mind in 1911 when he proudly worked to have the state's Constitution embrace the initiative, referendum and recall processes. He saw these tools as instruments for an aroused volunteer citizenry, not as mechanisms for wealthy corporate interests or political parties that pay signature-gathering firms to get their agendas on the ballot

So is the California Recall "True Democracy?" One influential voice says no, but citizens could make this event more worthwhile than a circus.

trumptman

08-12-2003, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by chu_bakka
It's funny how conservatives banged the "balance the budget" drum for so long and now that it's in their lap they try to downplay it.

SO which is it? High deficits ARE a big deal. Or only if it's a certain percentage of GDP? Or it's only applicable if there's a deficit under a democratic governor?

And the last time I checked... Bush had NO plan to get the deficit under control.

If you have read me across these boards and threads, I have repeated hit on Bush for not balancing the budget. He ought to do some seriously slashing of spending. Bush is hardly a conservative's conservative. He is more like the Republican's DLC.

Nick

trumptman

08-12-2003, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by Shawn
True Democracy?

Ralph Nader describes it as "a recall qualified by Republican multimillionaires to set up other Republican multimillionaires as candidates to replace the incumbent, Gray Davis."

According to Ralph Nader in "Make The Recall Count" (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0812-06.htm):

So is the California Recall "True Democracy?" One influential voice says no, but citizens could make this event more worthwhile than a circus.

He also describes Gray Davis like this...

Davis has tried to make an issue out of the $66 million or so that the state will spend to run the election. But what should be front and center in evaluating Davis' tenure is his notorious, relentless and specific cash-register politics since his first day in office.

As consumer advocate Harvey Rosenfield pointed out last week in a detailed statement supporting the recall of Davis ( http://www.emailfirst.org ), Californians have been forced to pay billions of dollars in higher electricity prices, utility company bailouts, HMO price-gouging of patients and many other impositions because Davis asked for and received torrents of dollars from these very corporate interests for his campaign war chest. Public funding of public elections is the best public investment, given the seedy alternatives.

While I don't always agree with Nader he brings interesting thoughts to the discussion. I personally like the large number of candidates and low bar for entry into the recall race. If we can pull off the election without people swearing they didn't know who they were voting for, it might force a lot or reform that could lead to more third party participation.

Nick

08-12-2003, 07:51 PM

Trumpet, do you agree that this (65 signatures and 3500 bucks) should be the process for ALL state elections?

trumptman

08-12-2003, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by BR
Trumpet, do you agree that this (65 signatures and 3500 bucks) should be the process for ALL state elections?

No I would add a provision that allowed you to get more signatures and lower the fee as well. $3500 can be a lot of money to lots of folks.

Nick

08-12-2003, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by trumptman
No I would add a provision that allowed you to get more signatures and lower the fee as well. $3500 can be a lot of money to lots of folks.

Nick
So, the point is that you feel that we should do away with the two party primary system and have open elections. Correct?

Shawn

08-12-2003, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by trumptman
If you have read me across these boards and threads, I have repeated hit on Bush for not balancing the budget. He ought to do some seriously slashing of spending. Bush is hardly a conservative's conservative. He is more like the Republican's DLC.

Nick

Preposterous. He's a Republican's "DLC" in name only- in that part of his election rhetoric that positions himself as a moderate but belies a much more conservative ideology. Granted, balancing the budget has traditionally been a conservative ideal, but not balancing the budget isn't always to be considered "liberal." Rather, tax cuts aimed at the rich in addition to heavy duty military spending is draining the amount of money left over for social services. Now, cutting services is a conservative ideal... So even though Bush hasn't balanced the budget, he's still a conservative's conservative in terms of what he's doing to the government and what the government can afford 10 years from now. If I was a conservative, I would consider Bush to be very much in my corner. (Of course Bush is a Neo-Con, which is not a traditional conservative, so maybe that's where the confusion comes from. But make no mistake, neo-cons are not moderate republicans by any stretch of the imagination.) I think it's important to correct lies and intentional misstatements when they arise.

...but to add to the discussion: full public funding for campaigns!

trumptman

08-12-2003, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by BR
So, the point is that you feel that we should do away with the two party primary system and have open elections. Correct?

No I would still allow the primary process so that respective parties can select their candidate for the general election. Nothing other than etiquette stops the candidates from running in the general election after the primary now. Likewise I don't like other parties interfering in that process. For example I don't think the Green party would like a bunch of conservative (by their standards) Democrats coming in and selecting a different Green candidate.

As for the general elections now, they are open. You don't have to belong to a party to vote.

Nick

trumptman

08-12-2003, 09:12 PM

Originally posted by Shawn
Preposterous. He's a Republican's "DLC" in name only- in that part of his election rhetoric that positions himself as a moderate but belies a much more conservative ideology. Granted, balancing the budget has traditionally been a conservative ideal, but not balancing the budget isn't always to be considered "liberal." Rather, tax cuts aimed at the rich in addition to heavy duty military spending is draining the amount of money left over for social services. Now, cutting services is a conservative ideal... So even though Bush hasn't balanced the budget, he's still a conservative's conservative in terms of what he's doing to the government and what the government can afford 10 years from now. If I was a conservative, I would consider Bush to be very much in my corner. (Of course Bush is a Neo-Con, which is not a traditional conservative, so maybe that's where the confusion comes from. But make no mistake, neo-cons are not moderate republicans by any stretch of the imagination.) I think it's important to correct lies and intentional misstatements when they arise.

...but to add to the discussion: full public funding for campaigns!

Bush hasn't cut social services. He has created an entirely new department of government. (Homeland Security) He reauthorized and enlarged the federal government commitment to education at a national level. (very anti-conservative) As you mentioned his neo-con views have led to policing and nation-building exercises which are not conservative at all.

The whole Bush family isn't even that strong on abortion rights or conservative judicial appointments. His father gave us David Souter on the Supreme Court in case you weren't aware of it. He hasn't attempted to privatize aspects of Social Security yet and spending has pretty much exploded in all areas of the government in addition to military spending.

Even his tax cuts weren't particularly conservative. If you consider child tax credit (not a cut, a pure redistributive credit) a conservative idea, it isn't.

I consider him better than Gore, but I consider him far from a conservative.

Since you aren't a conservative and it is my opinion that Bush isn't particularly conservative, how can you possible be correcting lies. My opinion is a lie now. Interesting.

Heard any wars on drugs during his administration? Any serious condemning of smut from Hollywood? Any just say no campaigns or things of that nature? Bush hasn't pounced on any big social conservative issues in case you hadn't noticed.

Speaking of the recall (thread topic sorry) Bush did endorse Riordan over Simon in the general election when it was held. Riordan is pro-choice, pro-homosexual rights and has campaigned and given money to just as many Democrats as Republicans.

Bush is very moderate, but not to someone who is so far to the left they think the Green party is moderate.

As for full public funding, that is insane. I prefer George Will's solution. No limits, no catagories, full disclosure. All election funding has done is protect incumbents, made it so you have to be a millionaire who loans your own campaign tons of money, and made it harder to track who gets what.

Likewise it has made the core of each political party even more powerful and tossed out all the political mavericks because they need the party building type soft money to get elected.

Nick

agent302

08-12-2003, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by BR
So, the point is that you feel that we should do away with the two party primary system and have open elections. Correct? I like the idea of the open system, but only in a two stage plurality. 200 people can run on the first stage, but you set a threshold and have a runoff of those who meet the threshold in the first stage. Seems like you'd get much more of a mandate than you will in the recall-esque system, but it does away with party control in primaries.

Shawn

08-13-2003, 01:47 AM

Originally posted by trumptman
Bush is very moderate

Olympia Snowe is a moderate Republican.
Susan Collins is a moderate Republican.
George Voinovich is a moderate Republican.
Even Arlen Specter is a moderate Republican.
Richard Riordan (sp?) and Arnold are moderate Republicans.

Bush is no moderate Republican, especially when Snowe and Voinovich refused to go along with Bush's initial figures for the second tax cut, one of the largest in history.

The amount of deception, trickery, and distortion here is amazing- that someone can call George W. Bush a moderate Republican with a straight face- in the face of his administration's bullying of moderate Republicans to go along with its plans. This is the administration that moved far to the right of McCain during the 2000 Primary to win.

I wonder if anyone else believes that Bush, surrounded by neo-cons and Karl Rove, supported by the Religious Right, is anything but a conservative leaning politician. Not a moderate, but a conservative. (old guard, neocon, whatever.)

Chinney

08-13-2003, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by trumptman
I like how 1.6 million signatures is a "few."

Likewise...

Unless 59-64% of Californians are Republicans (laughable to even suggest) then this is well beyond partisan politics.

My point is that the number of signatures required - which was actually only 897,158 - is only a small proportion of Californians. My further point is that getting this number of signatures (or whatever similar number will apply after the next vote) of continually pissed-off people might not be so hard even after the next Governor enters office. Could another recall then be allowed? (I am not sure about the finer point of California constitutional law on this issue)

I oppose recalls, whether launchened from the left or right. If a leader has done something illegal, then impeach him. Otherwise, let him/her govern and serve out his/her mandate. If you don't like the leader's policies, then vote against that person in the next scheduled election. That is democracy. Recalls are a parody of democracy that weaken the ability of any party to govern. They tend to be supported by people who are anti-government in general.

running with scissors

08-13-2003, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by Chinney
My point is that the number of signatures required - which was actually only 897,158 - is only a small proportion of Californians. My further point is that getting this number of signatures (or whatever similar number will apply after the next vote) of continually pissed-off people might not be so hard even after the next Governor enters office. Could another recall then be allowed? (I am not sure about the finer point of California constitutional law on this issue)

I oppose recalls, whether launchened from the left or right. If a leader has done something illegal, then impeach him. Otherwise, let him/her govern and serve out his/her mandate. If you don't like the leader's policies, then vote against that person in the next scheduled election. That is democracy. Recalls are a parody of democracy that weaken the ability of any party to govern. They tend to be supported by people who are anti-government in general.

ding ding ding ding ding. what he said and stuff.

jimmac

08-13-2003, 11:39 AM

Ha! California? Well don't get me wrong I love your state however What's going on there now is just so silly. And afterward what do they have to look forward to? Gary Coleman or The Terminator?:lol:

The Terminator doesn't do so well with questions does he? " My ear piece doesn't seem to be working. I heard the words but I don't understand the question ".

Someone should tell him not to quit his acting job.

agent302

08-13-2003, 11:58 AM

trumptman

08-13-2003, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Chinney
My point is that the number of signatures required - which was actually only 897,158 - is only a small proportion of Californians. My further point is that getting this number of signatures (or whatever similar number will apply after the next vote) of continually pissed-off people might not be so hard even after the next Governor enters office. Could another recall then be allowed? (I am not sure about the finer point of California constitutional law on this issue)

The reason the number is 897,158 is because it is a set percentage of people who had voted in the previous election. If more people had turned out, it would have been harder to recall Davis.

The reason people didn't turn out? Davis intervined in the Republican primary and took out Riordan. Then he spent millions (made in campaign contributions from energy companies, insurance companies, etc.) on nothing but purely negative political ads. He didn't advertise any ideas. So no one showed up to vote, he won by 3% and he basically slit his own throat. Run on ideas and people will turn out to support them. Run on, yeah but the other guy is the devil, and watch record low turnout occur.

Nick

trumptman

08-13-2003, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by agent302
While the California recall and budget are becoming farcical, I'm not sure an Oregonian should be commenting. I mean, our public schools are still open... ;)

OUCH!:lol: Oh and don't forget, we are smart enough to pump our own gas as well.

Nick

CubeDude

08-13-2003, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by jimmac
Ha! California? Well don't get me wrong I love your state however What's going on there now is just so silly. And afterward what do they have to look forward to? Gary Coleman or The Terminator?:lol:

The Terminator doesn't do so well with questions does he? " My ear piece doesn't seem to be working. I heard the words but I don't understand the question ".

Someone should tell him not to quit his acting job.

The California Recall: One of the Two Great Spectator Sports. :p

The other one is Stupid Arguments. :p

We have, what, 250 candidates? California is so screwed. A tie would mean that each candidate received 142,364 votes. Most counties in California are bigger than that. That's like my town(Benicia, CA) and its neighbor(Vallejo, CA) combined. Of course, with Arnold, a tie is pretty much impossible, IMHO.

Then again, maybe my math is off.

Then again again, Califonia is so screwed.

IMHO.

Chinney

08-13-2003, 09:12 PM

Originally posted by trumptman
The reason the number is 897,158 is because it is a set percentage of people who had voted in the previous election. If more people had turned out, it would have been harder to recall Davis.

The reason people didn't turn out? Davis intervined in the Republican primary and took out Riordan. Then he spent millions (made in campaign contributions from energy companies, insurance companies, etc.) on nothing but purely negative political ads. He didn't advertise any ideas. So no one showed up to vote, he won by 3% and he basically slit his own throat. Run on ideas and people will turn out to support them. Run on, yeah but the other guy is the devil, and watch record low turnout occur.

Oh give me a break. So if a few more had turned up, the number of required signatures would be a bit greater. The point is percentages. California requires signatures equaling only 12% of votes cast in the previous election (most states require much more). Add that to the fact that reversing an election on the basis of signatures is a loopy idea to begin with and you have the current California circus.