Reply #39: While valid, that's not really the point. [View All]

[TahitiNut]

The point I (ineptly?) tried to show is how the very design of a 'recall' is anti-democratic. It's overtly designed to make a second-place vote-getter 'win' in any election where nobody gets a majority.

In other words, by the same 'recall rules' Simon would probably have been deemed Governor in the 2002 election.

On edit: That said, I'll still take less than even odds (3 to 5?) that only one Repugnant will be on the recall ballot. Unless I'm missing something relevant, the outcome of the recall election is heavily dependent on the ratio of 'mainstream' liberals to 'mainstream' conservatives on the replacement question (#2 on the ballot).

Democrats are seemingly betting that if '#liberals' = 0, then Davis will win on the recall question (#1 on the ballot).

If they're wrong, and if the "against recall" votes have nowhere to go on the replacement question (#2 on the ballot), then it won't matter too much how many 'conservatives' are running -- a 'conservative' will win.

If they're wrong, and if the "against recall" votes have a 'liberal' choice on the replacement question (#2 on the ballot), then the number of 'conservatives' running will make a huge difference -- a 'conservative' will win only if the number of 'conservatives' is significantly less than the number of 'liberals'.

Trying to predict how Californians will vote is something on which nobody has a good track record. :shrug: