The radio told me that Elder is already talking about fraud in the election, just in case he loses.
♫♫ It’s the American way!! ♫♫
Thinking about this.
In the scenario where Newsom doesn’t get 50%, sure - we know that more than 50% would rather have someone else. But, unless someone like Elder gets >50%, we don’t know whether or not more than 50% would rather have someone else other than him - in the same way as Newsom. We know that more than 50% would rather have “their guy” than Elder, but not the generic “anyone” that Newsom had to beat.
Put Newsom in the running if he gets less than 50%. It’s possible (likely even) that, while 50% would rather have “someone else”, more people would want him than some specific “someone else”.
But the whole idea behind a recall is to determine if the people have confidence in the current governor. If the majority of people don’t have confidence in him then he’s out. Ideally, there would also be a provision that he can’t run for that office ever again in the future, though possibly he could run for another office in the state. But the people have spoken that the majority don’t have confidence in him. Why should he then have another bite at that apple if he were to manage to get more than anyone else running? The fact that they don’t do a runoff or IRV for his replacement is a problem for CA and the guy who does get the most votes and gets in. But CA said NO to the current one, so he’s out possibly until he runs in the next election.
Yup. Newsom should be allowed to be on the ballot of replacements for himself, but he is, in fact, NOT allowed to be on the ballot.
Just another reason the law needs to be changed, FOR EVERYONE’s (both sides’!!) sake.
The first election is saying is Newsom fit to be a governor. By rejecting him it’s people saying he is unfit to be a governor. In fact he isn’t allowed by law to be governor again for the remainder of that term, even through a separate special election.
The second vote is really like a separate election that happens to take place at the same time
Because he might be the person closest to meeting the threshold of “more than 50% have confidence in him”. If in a head to head 40% indicate confidence in him and only 30% hav it in Elder, Newsom is still the best option.
If nobody can meet that criteria, he should still be an option.
Should be that the winner of the election is required to have 50%+1 votes. If not, then a runoff involving the results of smallest group of candidates, in results order, wherein the sum of the results exceed 50%. Simple Robert’s Rules.
1 Like
So say someone named Trump is governor. He gets recalled 60% to 40%. He’s allowed to be on the next ballot. 40% vote Trump, 35% vote Biden 25% vote Bernie. Trump stays governor. You think that’s more fair?
Yes, actually.
Or, have a ballot where it is “do you have confidence in X if they were governor” and take the candidate with the highest “yes” percent. Make everyone run against themselves so it’s apples to apples.
I guess we just disagree then. To me a recall is a way to completely remove someone from office. Not see if he’s better than the replacements
2 Likes
Basically the voters method to impeach and convict
I don’t know what’s fair but what the CA system is on question #2 is a clusterfuck.
If #2 doesn’t get over 50%, there should be a runoff of some sort or ranked choice voting until someone gets 50+%
1 Like
I agree there should be ranked choice on the second part
Yeah - we do disagree. If he’s the one closest to meeting that threshold, he should be governor still. Under the current system we can’t determine that, since the two elections are measuring different things.
Another option is - if Newsom gets X% saying “we’re good with him”, and Elder gets <X% of the vote, runoff between Newsom and Elder.
If he got >X% in the original election, no need for the runoff.
And if it took 5 candidates to get to 50% of the vote in the first election, but in the runoff, no one still gets 50%, does the plurality win or do you go to another runoff under the same rules? From my experience, runoff elections where no one gets 50%+1 votes the first time take the top 2 in votes so as to ensure the runoff will result in someone with 50%+1 since all votes not for either of the 2 on the ballot will be discarded.
Yes we do disagree on what a recall election is. It is not to determine who the most people favor to be in a particular office. It is to determine if >50% of the people voting in the recall want to throw the current bum out. If they do, he is out and we get a new bum in. Otherwise, they would let him on the ballot for replacement, but they don’t because if he is recalled, then he is thrown out of office. Which is the definition of a recall.
I would imagine most of the time the person who was recalled would lose the runoff. But if no bum is any more palatable, keep the best bun of the bunch, even if it’s the current bum, IMO.
If you’d rather have Newsome than some of the more probable someone-else’s then you should vote to not recall him.
Like if Biden were facing a recall election and the leading challengers are Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz and your personal preference is
Bill Weld
Joe Biden
Ted Cruz
Bernie Sanders
then you’re kind of dumb to vote to recall Biden. There’s not much chance of Bill Weld becoming POTUS.
If you vote to recall, you’re saying that he gots ta go. If that’s not how you feel then you shouldn’t vote to recall. It’s not about slight preferences… it’s about “he screwed up so bad that he shouldn’t be in office even if my preferred guy doesn’t replace him.”
Slight preferences are what general elections and runoffs are for. Not recall elections.
Yeah, they should make it harder to get on the ballot (wasn’t there over 100 candidates when Gray Davis was recalled?) and then do a ranked choice vote if the recall is successful. No one’s going to be able to rank 100+ candidates or even 10, but rank at least, say, 3. You might still get a plurality winner, but with a stronger plurality at least.