California Fault Line

[BoSoxGal]

We are 17 days away from the recall election in California and I’m sick to my stomach over it, wondering how you Californians are feeling?

The latest polling from 538 shows keep at 50% and recall at 46%, but as I understand it there is great concern that apathy will keep many Democrat voters home and the results may not at all reflect this polling.

It is utterly bizarre that a perfectly competent governor elected with 60% of the vote could fall and a dangerous person like Larry Elder be elected to take his place with a tiny fraction of votes.

Obviously reform of this insane recall system in the Golden state should be a priority for post pandemic politics - admittedly I have no idea how difficult achieving such reforms might be.

[dales]

I mailed my ballot 2 days ago.

I voted NO!

[TPFKA@W]

I voted.

[liberty]

I voted yes.

[Joe Guy]

At first I thought there was no way that Newsom would be recalled. Then I thought if most people felt that way, they might not worry about voting against the recall and someone could easily get voted in.

Also, I don't like the way the ballot is set up. First they ask whether or not Gavin Newsom should be recalled (check yes or no), then there's 46 candidates listed to choose from - and you aren't required to vote for any of them for your ballot to be accepted. So, as long as over 50% of voters vote "Yes", a candidate could win with very few votes.

It's ridiculous. Besides, the next election is in 2022 so if you really don't want Newsom you could vote him out next year.

[ex-khobar Andy]

I have not really been paying attention to this assuming it was a bit of a sideshow.

But: there is every possibility that Newsom will lose the recall vote by a narrow margin - say 45% want to keep him and 55% say time for him to go - and be replaced by one of the 46 candidates who gets say 10% (or even less) of the second part of this beauty contest. Let those numbers sink in. 45% say Gov Newsom; 10% say Gov XXX. XXX wins. Those 46 do not include many of the Democratic Party candidates who might be plausible replacements; and all it takes to get an R winner of Part II is some elementary degree of organization. And if Dianne Feinstein is unable to finish her term - and let's face it she's not looking great - then the Senate would swing back to Moscow Mitch as Newsom's successor appoints her replacement.

Democracy - wasn't a bad idea for a while. Shame.

Good piece in The Atlantic.

[Gob]

Your system is fucked.

[Jarlaxle]

Very few states have anything like California's weird gubernatorial recall system.

[MGMcAnick]

Very few states have anything like California's weird gubernatorial recall system.

I'd guess one.

[Joe Guy]

I guess there are 5 other states that have the same recall system as California.

Map w/info.

[Econoline]

From the chart that follows the map, Joe, it appears that only one state (Colorado) has the same sort of recall ballot—with the recall question (YES/NO) immediately followed by a separate replacement question (if YES, then WHO'S NEXT?) on the same ballot. The other 4 (AZ/NV/ND/WI) have only the one question—in effect a special election in which the sitting gov runs against all possible replacements, winner-take-all. I don't know if Colorado is like California in allowing a replacement to take office with a plurality, no matter how tiny, even if there are several times the number of voters voting AGAINST recalling the incumbent (49%, say) as there are voting FOR the plurality-"winning" replacement (10%, say).

It does seem like even with this very weird recall system it should be possible to legally protect the state from such a patently unfair and unjust outcome.

BTW, I agree with Gob here—with the addition of one more word: California, your system is fucked.

[Joe Guy]

From the chart that follows the map, Joe, it appears that only one state (Colorado) has the same sort of recall ballot—with the recall question (YES/NO) immediately followed by a separate replacement question (if YES, then WHO'S NEXT?) on the same ballot.

I didn't go any further than seeing that 6 states have what is called a "Simultaneous recall election". Thanks for clearing that up for me. Now I understand my state's gubernatorial recall process is fuckeder upper than than all or all but one of the United States.

[Bicycle Bill]

The other 4 (AZ/NV/ND/WI) have only the one question—in effect a special election in which the sitting gov runs against all possible replacements, winner-take-all.

Speaking as a Wisconsin resident and voter, the process when we tried to recall Snottie Wanker (Scott Walker) about ten years ago ran something like this:
1) Recall petitions were circulated, and sufficient signatures calling for a recall had to be gathered and verified.
2) A special recall election would be called.
3) Walker, as the incumbent Republican, would then stand against anyone else who wished to run under whatever party they chose to do so ... so up to this point, E'line is correct in that "the sitting gov runs against all possible replacements".
 

HOWEVER...

 
Should there be more than one candidate for a given party, then a primary election for that party would be held with the top vote-getter making it onto the final ballot ... and in this particular instance, there was more than one Democrat who wanted to take Walker's place (there were even credible reports that the Republicans even convinced one of their lower-level members to circulate papers as a Democrat to make sure there was going be a run-off).

AND — the Republicans also ran a 'straw man' against Walker to force a Republican primary as well...  with the double benefit that it pushed the final head-to-head recall election out by several months, and Walker and the Republicans could use that time to amass funds to use when the election was held.

Well, the scheme worked just as the Republicans intended.  The 'make-believe' Republican candidate got hammered in the primary leaving Walker alone on the final recall ballot, as expected, as well as using the opportunity to solicit donations and building up the funds in their war chest, while the Democrats were squandering their resources in-fighting amongst themselves.  Then, when the actual recall election was held, Walker was able to spend his party's money for TV ads and mailings like a drunken sailor on shore leave after five years at sea and literally buy himself back into the Governor's Mansion.

And since the Republicans controlled the Wisconsin legislature since then they saw no reason to 'fix' a system that worked for them, so I'm pretty sure things haven't changed.

-"BB"-

[rubato]

Your system is fucked.

Electing Boris Johnson and embracing the governmental syphilis of brexit entitles you to say so.

yrs,
rubato

[Gob]

Your system is fucked.

Electing Boris Johnson and embracing the governmental syphilis of brexit entitles you to say so.

yrs,
rubato

So no answer to the actual point then.

[BoSoxGal]

Black conservative radio host Larry Elder claims reparations are owed to slave OWNERS who had their 'property stolen' after the Civil War

Only a week to go Californians! I hope you’re all calling everyone you know to urge them to vote NO. Maybe volunteer to call people you don’t know, too!

[Scooter]

I was going to post that one in the "you can't make this shit up" thread.

[Bicycle Bill]

Black conservative radio host Larry Elder claims reparations are owed to slave OWNERS who had their 'property stolen' after the Civil War

I saw that too.  He also claims the Brits paid their slave holders for the 'loss' of their property (and that's why THEY didn't have a civil war about it), which should be easy enough to prove or disprove.

But let's face it — if someone confiscated your factory, or your car, or your dairy herd, or any other property you may have legally owned without due process, that's not too far removed from stealing or rustling — or as some governments called it, 'nationalizing' something.  And no less a personage as US Secretary of State Cordell Hull, back in 1938, said (in regard to the nationalization of the Mexican oil industry) that compensation should be "prompt, effective and adequate".  According to this view, the nationalizing state is obligated under international law to pay the deprived party the full value of the property taken.  And we see that even today with the gun buy-backs (you agree to exchange your weapon for something of value) or the Obama administration's 'Cash-for-Clunkers' program.

-"BB"-

[Scooter]

There were many proposals to compensate slave owners for emancipation before the Civil War. Slave states and their slaveholders would have none of them. Once a war had to be fought over the issue, the rest of the nation was clearly not in the mood to entertain any idea of compensation. And any compensation that might have been owed under the 5th Amendment was clearly nullified by the 13th Amendment, which made it illegal to own slaves.

[rubato]

Black conservative radio host Larry Elder claims reparations are owed to slave OWNERS who had their 'property stolen' after the Civil War

I saw that too.  He also claims the Brits paid their slave holders for the 'loss' of their property (and that's why THEY didn't have a civil war about it), which should be easy enough to prove or disprove.
...

-"BB"-

They did, remarkably. The British compensated the Jamaican (and some other colonies) slave owners but it was more for the sake of political utility than anything else. Interestingly they paid nothing to the slaves who had suffered greater inconvenience for the institution than the owners by its abolition.

I have not heard that a civil war was a probable alternative. Since the slave holdiing was in a colony a local rebellion might have been possible but very unlikely.

yrs,
rubato