California and Arnie?

Posted by: CrackersMcCheese

California and Arnie? - 07/10/2003 15:04

How likely is he to get in? What are your views if you live there?
Posted by: RobotCaleb

Re: California and Arnie? - 07/10/2003 15:06

i dont live there, but if i did my vote would be for georgy russell
26 year old programmer, knows linux. cute.
Posted by: CrackersMcCheese

Re: California and Arnie? - 07/10/2003 15:08

ooh ooh I want to be Georgy General!
Posted by: loren

Re: California and Arnie? - 07/10/2003 15:17

If you believe the polls, he's going to win, and i'm pissed about it. I doubt he even has a clue how a bill becomes law, and he'll be the "leader" of our state. On top of it i'm pissed that this recall even happened in the first place. What a collosal waste of money by a state that is already way way in debt and is cutting essential programs like "edumacatin' tha lil' 'uns" to make up for it. The worst part is that this will set a precedent, and this will keep happening when a minority of the people are unhappy with the Governer. Davis was elected, and hasn't done anything that warrants this recall in any way shape or form. I don't like him or most of his policies, but he was fairly elected, and should finish his term.

Now we'll have a minority elected Governer. Hows that any better?

This just reminded me... what ever happened with Jesse Ventura? How was/is he as a Governer?
Posted by: davec

Re: California and Arnie? - 07/10/2003 15:26

Actually Ahnold is supposed to be a rather savvy real estate investor and I'm sure he's gotten a good grasp of the concept of law to be able to make the money he did in real estate. As for the recall, it's the political process at work, granted it was started by the Republicans that didn't want Davis in anymore, it is the process the State of California has in place, and it would have been wrong legally to not allow the recall election to go forth. Now, as for whether or not it will benefit the state is a different matter.
What I found humorous/disturbing is some interview I caught the other day with someone talking about California being the "pulse of the nation and where it's headed." I sincerely hope he had his head up his ass, because if the rest of the US goes the way of California, I'm moving to Mexico...
Posted by: loren

Re: California and Arnie? - 07/10/2003 15:47

Real estate law and the way the government actually works are worlds apart, but i'm sure he's not a complete moron.

As for the process... agreed that it has legs in the law, but it's purely politically motivated. It's not like some grass roots movement that upset Californians started because they didn't like what Davis was doing. It's pure party politics. It took a small minority of people to get it going (one man actually), and thanks to them the state has to spend upwards of 75 million following through. I'm opposed to the recall on principle more than anything. This state is a laughing stock. Canada's looking nicer and nicer. Too bad i hate Winter.
Posted by: msaeger

Re: California and Arnie? - 07/10/2003 16:06

Ventura (Governor Turnbuckle) campaigned as a fiscal conservative / social liberal. Got elected turned into a total liberal put the state into debt then didn't run for re-election.

Oh yeah then he got a show on MSNBC that premiered Sunday I think. Now I get to hear the news talk about it getting crappy ratings.
Posted by: g_attrill

Re: California and Arnie? - 07/10/2003 17:00

I liked the "porn for guns" chick, but would that quality of the pr0n you get be related to the quality and... ahem... size of your "guns"?

Also, what will Matt Groening's take be?


WOLFCASTLE FOR GOVERNOR!!!!

Gareth
Posted by: visuvius

Re: California and Arnie? - 07/10/2003 17:43

The whole thing is a farce really. I pretty much agree with Loren -- I don't find Davis particularly interesting, and he is starting to look more and more like a penis-head, but IMO , the guy didn't do enough damage to warrant being recalled. The Republicans just wanted hiss ass out.

I am still having trouble wrapping my mind around the fact that Conan is going to be the next President of my state. Whatever though man, my vote is going to Mohammed Arif -- I gotta support my peoples.



Posted by: cushman

Re: California and Arnie? - 07/10/2003 17:47

Learn to snowboard, it makes winter much nicer!
Posted by: loren

Re: California and Arnie? - 07/10/2003 18:12

I can snowboard just fine thank you! That's one of the benefits of the Bay Area... i can drive 2.5 hours and be in the snow during winter... but i don't have to LIVE in it. =]
Posted by: lectric

Re: California and Arnie? - 07/10/2003 19:07

For all those interested, live results will be posted Here. There are some pretty cool little applets too.
Posted by: Dignan

Re: California and Arnie? - 07/10/2003 19:35

If the polls are any indication, I here the vote is Yes and Arnold has a 51% lead. Bustamonte (sp?) has about 30%-something. Sorry, Loren. That bites.
Posted by: lectric

Re: California and Arnie? - 07/10/2003 21:30

The same numbers are carrying through with the official results. That is, of course, with only 3.6% in so far. Oh, and Gary Coleman is running 10th. Unbelieveable.
Posted by: loren

Re: California and Arnie? - 07/10/2003 21:38

It's a joke to so many people it makes me sick. I lost count of how many times i over heard conversations of guys talking about how they were gonna vote for the porn girl or for Arnold because they want the Terminator as the Governer.

The other thing that's making me angry... Exit polls are now apparently gospel. That, and they've been saying the same thing all week on every news broadcast, and talk radio show i listen to, which pisses me off to no end. I haven't heard one word about any other candidate in 2 weeks. It's just Arnold and Grey. That's all you hear. Calling an election before the polls are closed should be WAY illegal.
Posted by: lectric

Re: California and Arnie? - 07/10/2003 21:43

10-4. Especially when it really can screw up results. It can lead to any number of things, like people running out to vote when they hear their candidate is losing to people thinking "why bother" if their candidate is winning. And of course exit polls mean diddly [censored] when it comes right down to it, so why not wait and post the results an hour later, when it's officially in the record books. I mean, there's no problem reporting numbers as different counties or precincts report in, at least at that point voting is over.
Posted by: gbeer

Re: California and Arnie? - 07/10/2003 21:47

Did any one else see the Who wants to be governer of Calif. gameshow .

The highlight was the very bouncy Mary Carey. Very popular with the studio audiance.
Posted by: Dignan

Re: California and Arnie? - 07/10/2003 22:11

Absolutely, Loren. It's really been a shame. Arnold basically got free publicity throughout the entire two minute long race. He's all the media could think of and talk about. Very sickening.

I mean seriously, when it comes down to it, what difference is there between Arnold and any of the other candidates? The difference is public deception. It's his money, his movies, (partly) his wife and public life, and it fools a hell of a lot of people into buying this crap.

And to think I stood by Arnold in his movie career. Even through Eraser.
Posted by: loren

Re: California and Arnie? - 07/10/2003 23:23

I'm watching his acceptance speech. I feel like i'm in some parallel universe. *pinch* *pinch pinch pinch*





.
.
.
.
damn.
Posted by: tfabris

Re: California and Arnie? - 08/10/2003 00:30

I feel like i'm in some parallel universe.
Yeah, it's really strange to see an actor end up in office. I mean, that's never happened before.

...

...

...

Oh no... you don't suppose he intends to... Uh oh!

I wonder if the people who did the Davis Recall campaign would still have done it if they'd known there was a chance it might bring another actor one step closer to the White house.

God help us all...
Posted by: mtempsch

Re: California and Arnie? - 08/10/2003 00:37

I feel like i'm in some parallel universe.

Come on, we're talking California here...

Oh no... you don't suppose he intends to... Uh oh!

IIRC, him not being born in the US would prevent that, wouldn't it?

/Michael
Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: California and Arnie? - 08/10/2003 00:46

Fortunately, there's still the matter of the constitution saying that one has to be born in the US (a natural citizen) to be able to run for Prez. Unfortunately, Sen. Orrin Hatch is working on trying to amend that.

Gropinator for Gov. Whee. I mean... come *on* people -- did you totally not notice his complete lack of a platform? Gah.



Posted by: loren

Re: California and Arnie? - 08/10/2003 00:47

IIRC, him not being born in the US would prevent that, wouldn't it?
Not if some people could help it.
Posted by: tfabris

Re: California and Arnie? - 08/10/2003 00:55

Fortunately, there's still the matter of the constitution saying that one has to be born in the US
*PHEW*

Thanks for giving me the civics lesson and making me less worried.
Posted by: drakino

Re: California and Arnie? - 08/10/2003 01:02

"I believe the time has come to address the antiquated provision of the constitution that requires our president to be a natural-born citizen," said Hatch, according to the Herald News of Fall River, Mass. "It has long outlived its original purpose."
Umm, how about getting rid of the antiquated electoral college while your at it, since that bothers me much more then not letting non natural born citizens run for president. Better yet, also do something to get rid of this two party rut we have been in for way too long.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: California and Arnie? - 08/10/2003 04:27

Calling an election before the polls are closed should be WAY illegal.


I disagree. Eventhough the 2nd article of the Bill of Rights has been infringed many times over (especially in California), I'd like to at least see the 1st article remain intact. The problem is the stupid mass of people who believe everything they hear on tv.
Posted by: CrackersMcCheese

Re: California and Arnie? - 08/10/2003 04:29

Bookies here are taking bets on the constitution being changed, and Arnie becoming President!
Posted by: mtempsch

Re: California and Arnie? - 08/10/2003 06:56

At what odds?

/Michael
Posted by: lectric

Re: California and Arnie? - 08/10/2003 07:02

And what time limit? Seems like waiting for Arnie to run for prez would be a loooong time away.
Posted by: CrackersMcCheese

Re: California and Arnie? - 08/10/2003 07:17

Odds of 500-1 at William Hill ! No sign of a time limit! Now been reduced to 50-1 after a flurry of bets!

See here
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: California and Arnie? - 08/10/2003 08:55

What were the concrete reasons that people didn't like Gov. Davis? I've yet to figure that out (not that I follow California politics closely).

I mean, ignoring the political cause of instigating the recall vote itself, there had to be some reason for over four million people to vote to oust him.
Posted by: ninti

Re: California and Arnie? - 08/10/2003 09:35

> What were the concrete reasons that people didn't like Gov. Davis? I've yet to figure that out (not that I follow California politics closely).

Well, I live here and I could not figure it out either. I have been asking a lot of people recently why, and I am still kind of unsatisfied. I think a lot of people blame him for the energy problems and the recession, which is stupid; Bush and previous governor Pete Wilson are to blame for those things. He has raised the so-called car tax, the cost of registering your car, which seems like a reasonable tax to me given the nature of California politics. There are some other misc taxes and fees that have been raised, and it didn't help him that a lot of those bills came in in the last month. There is a lot of anti-illegal immigrant feelings here and his proposal for illegals to be able to get drivers licenses pissed a lot of people off. There seems to be a feeling that Davis has no morals or principles and is available to the highest special interest bidder. I think in that regard, anyone imagining that Arnold is going to be any better should have clued into his "I will not take special interest money" flip-flop, when he said he wouldn't, while he already was.

As for Arnold, I don't hate the man. I do not think he can handle the job though and I have little faith in his talents. I believe he is basically a good man though (groping aside) and I just hope that he doesn't screw it up too bad.

Of course, at one time, I felt the exact same way about Bush. That didn't turn out so well.


Spent the night reading, watching, and basically immersed in election news. Some of the better funny tidbits:

Arnold becomes the second actor from Predator to become a governor of a state. Carl Weathers said to be biding his time. - Commennts on Fark

I am sure Arnold will be a "hands-on" governor. - Arianna Huffington

Beaking news: Confused Al Gore demands recount - Letterman
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: California and Arnie? - 08/10/2003 10:13

I think a lot of people blame him for the energy problems and the recession, which is stupid; Bush and previous governor Pete Wilson are to blame for those things.


Ah, yes. Blame it on the republicans.
Posted by: rompel

Re: California and Arnie? - 08/10/2003 10:13

Now we'll have a minority elected Governer. Hows that any better?
Just thought I'd point out that Arnold appears to be getting a higher percentage of a higher turnout than Gray Davis did last year. See here and here.
The other thing that's making me angry... Exit polls are now apparently gospel. That, and they've been saying the same thing all week on every news broadcast, and talk radio show i listen to, which pisses me off to no end. I haven't heard one word about any other candidate in 2 weeks. It's just Arnold and Grey. That's all you hear. Calling an election before the polls are closed should be WAY illegal.
I'd rather we keep the First Ammendment intact, thank you very much!

Personally, I'd really like us to adopt a system of preferential voting (aka instant runoff). That would eliminate all of the strategic voting nonsense and would make third party candidates (and moderate Republicans) more viable. No chance of getting the incumbant politicians to support that one, though.

--John

P.S. Don't blame me, I voted for McClintock.

Posted by: Anonymous

Re: California and Arnie? - 08/10/2003 10:17

I'd really like us to adopt a system of preferential voting (aka instant runoff).


Definitely. That's how they do the elections over here in louisiana.
Posted by: loren

Re: California and Arnie? - 08/10/2003 10:42

Just thought I'd point out that Arnold appears to be getting a higher percentage of a higher turnout than Gray Davis
Yup. Very interesting. more people come out to vote NOW when if they had so many issues against him they should have voted LAST Nov. But, then we were presented with Simon or Davis... blech. The really interesting stats were on the Bay Area... i think it was 80% didn't want the recall. We should have our own country. heheh. this is pretty telling.

I'd rather we keep the First Ammendment intact, thank you very much!
That's all fine and good, but you have no qualm with the fact that mass media predicting an election while the polls are still open can affect the way people will vote? That fact doesn't bother you at all??

What were the concrete reasons that people didn't like Gov. Davis? I've yet to figure that out (not that I follow California politics closely).
I wish i knew why the mass of people dislike him. I personally dislike his corporate pandering and flip flopping, but overall, i never had the sense that he was a horrible governer. CERTAINLY not enough to recall him. I can't pin any of the economic downturn that we've had on him... but i haven't looked into it anymore than figuring out that the power crisis stuff had nothing to do with him. The most troublesome thing i saw last night were some of the exit poll interviews... where when people were asked why they wanted Davis out... they either completely fumbled and had no answer or gave ludicrous answers like "he was responsible for that oil thing". Which goes to my point on the media giving unfair time. The more i talk to people the more i see how uneducated about this entire situation people are... myself included. It's hard as hell to have time to learn on your own about these things, so people rely on what they see on TV and hear on radio. Don't dilude yourself into thinking otherwise.

Definitely. That's how they do the elections over here in louisiana
Yeah, that was one good thing about the political system of LA. Napoleonic code baby. Rock.
Posted by: peter

Re: California and Arnie? - 08/10/2003 10:50

That's all fine and good, but you have no qualm with the fact that mass media predicting an election while the polls are still open can affect the way people will vote? That fact doesn't bother you at all??
I guess it's dwarfed by the influence the mass media have before polling day over the way people vote...

Peter
Posted by: ninti

Re: California and Arnie? - 08/10/2003 11:20

> Ah, yes. Blame it on the republicans.

Yep, place blame where the blame is due and not take it out on a scapegoat.
Posted by: DWallach

Re: California and Arnie? - 08/10/2003 11:30

Personally, I'd really like us to adopt a system of preferential voting (aka instant runoff).

Just for fun, I ran a spreadsheet against the semi-official numbers listed in the NYTimes (the table cuts-and-pastes nicely from IE into Excel). There were a total of 7.5 million votes cast. Schwarzenegger got 3.6 million of those (48%), Bustamante got 2.4 million (32%), leaving some 20% of the votes for "other" candidates. Bustamante would have needed to get virtually all of them in order to win, which would be unlikely, no matter your election system.

While I was at it, I decided to play some what-if games. If we assign all the McClintock (conservative republican) and Ueberroth (republican) votes to Schwarzenegger, and we assign all the Camejo (green) and Huffington (?) votes to Bustamante, then we've covered all the big vote getters. After that, you've got Larry Flynt and Gary Coleman. Heaven only knows how you could assign those votes, so let's leave them, and everybody else, in the "other" column. Now the totals look like this:

Schwarzenegger: 4,642,783 votes (still wins)
Bustamante: 2,651,741 votes (still nowhere close)
None-of-the-above: 214,295 votes

If you buy into my assumptions on voters for the top seven candidates, then the remaining "Cowboy Neil" voters simply aren't enough to effect the election. Pretty much no matter how you slice it, no matter what voting system you use, Arnold wins this election.

Massive caveat: they still have to count all the absentee ballots, which I read somewhere were almost 1/3 of the total cast ballots. That would mean there's another 3 million or more uncounted votes. To win the election, Bustamante would need to get upwards of 70% of those votes cast for him. That seems unlikely. On the flip side, the recall question was much closer. A disparity in the absentee ballots would be more likely to keep Davis in office than to elect Bustamante.
Posted by: tonyc

Re: California and Arnie? - 08/10/2003 11:34

Pretty much no matter how you slice it, no matter what voting system you use, Arnold wins this election.
And that's why I'm very very glad I don't live in California.
Posted by: Foz

Re: California and Arnie? - 08/10/2003 11:50

I'm really ambivalent about Arnold, but I do despise Gray Davis. At least the election was pretty good fuel for my daily rant

-- Gary F.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: California and Arnie? - 08/10/2003 11:57

Pretty much no matter how you slice it, no matter what voting system you use, Arnold wins this election.


But if there was a runoff, then all the people who voted NO to the recall, would probably vote for Bustamante
Posted by: blitz

Re: California and Arnie? - 08/10/2003 12:02

But if there was a runoff, then all the people who voted NO to the recall, would probably vote for Bustamante

The numbers show that even if you voted No to the recall you still got to vote for a candidate in case Davis was recalled.
Posted by: rompel

Re: California and Arnie? - 08/10/2003 12:06

I'd rather we keep the First Ammendment intact, thank you very much!
That's all fine and good, but you have no qualm with the fact that mass media predicting an election while the polls are still open can affect the way people will vote? That fact doesn't bother you at all??

Sure, it bothers me that people are such idiots that they want to vote for a winner and not vote for a loser so much that they'll let the exit polls and media projections influence their behavior. But I'm generally bothered by the level of idiocy in the electorate.

However, what you suggest amounts to saying that there is information out there which the elites have access to but should be kept hidden from the electorate because they're too stupid to use it properly. I find that notion repugnant and totally contrary to the principles of democracy.

And, besides, Peter is right. It's not like the media aren't influencing the elections throughout the process.

I can't pin any of the economic downturn that we've had on him... but i haven't looked into it anymore than figuring out that the power crisis stuff had nothing to do with him.

The power crisis may not have been started by Davis, but I think he completely mishandled it. Even Bustamante said that he should have called the energy companies' bluff. Instead, he let it be known that California would pay any price to avoid blackouts. It's no surprise that the energy suppliers jacked the prices up into the stratosphere. Then Davis locked in those high prices with a bunch of long term contracts.

As for the budget mess, California had a huge increase in revenues due mainly to capital gains realized during the tech bubble. Instead of treating these as the short-term bonus that they were and doing something one-off like investing in infrastructure or paying down some bonds or even returning some money to the taxpayers, Davis and the legislature increased spending in ways that increased the baseline budget. Included in this were a bunch of sweetheart deals with the public-sector unions which have supported him though the years. When the revenues disappeared, we were suddenly left with a massive deficit. While I don't know enough to accurately apportion blame between Davis and the legislature, he has a line-item veto so nothing gets through without his consent.

Definitely. That's how they do the elections over here in louisiana

Hmm. I thought Louisiana featured an open primary with a run-off between the top two if nobody got over 50%.

--John
Posted by: matthew_k

Re: California and Arnie? - 08/10/2003 12:17

Yup, Arnold won it fair and square. As much as the recall system is flawed in allowing a candidate to win with a plurality less than the amount of people voting against the recall, that didn't happen. Though it doesn't matter technically, Arnold got 100,000 more votes than Davis.

Matthew
Posted by: Ezekiel

Re: California and Arnie? - 08/10/2003 12:29

So you're saying this has been a Total Recall?

Ba Dumph! Thank yeew!

-Zeke
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: California and Arnie? - 08/10/2003 12:42

Hmm. I thought Louisiana featured an open primary with a run-off between the top two if nobody got over 50%.


Yeah, that's how it's done. I thought that's what you meant.
Posted by: DWallach

Re: California and Arnie? - 08/10/2003 12:42

Here's a more interesting take on the California election:

http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/votingmachines.htm
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: California and Arnie? - 08/10/2003 12:43

The numbers show that even if you voted No to the recall you still got to vote for a candidate in case Davis was recalled.


Ah, ok. That makes more sense.
Posted by: rompel

Re: California and Arnie? - 08/10/2003 13:11

You are assuming that everybody voted for their top choice. I'm looking at this a little differently. I strongly suspect that there are many voters who would have preferred McClintock over Arnold, but voted for Arnold because they preferred him to Bustamante. (Similarly, there are a fair number who preferred Camejo or Ariana to Cruz, but voted for Cruz because they preferred him to Arnold. This would be unlikely to change anything, however)

McClintock claims to have data indicating that he would have won if people voted for the person they most wanted for governor rather than thinking of it as a choice between the two front runners. While this claim is not implausible, I suspect you are correct that Arnold would have won under any reasonable voting system.

Now consider the 2002 CA election. If you got rid of the primary and just had a single preferential vote between Davis, Simon, Riordan, Jones, and Camejo (and the other 10 minor candidates on the primary ballot), it's my firm belief that Riordan would have won easily. And thus we could have avoided this recall in the first place.

For the Democrats in the audience (i.e. most of you), if the 2000 presidential election were held on a preferential ballot, the Nader vote would have broken at least 4:1 for Gore and Gore would have won easily.

--John
Posted by: rompel

Re: California and Arnie? - 08/10/2003 13:42

Hmm. I thought Louisiana featured an open primary with a run-off between the top two if nobody got over 50%.
Yeah, that's how it's done. I thought that's what you meant.


What I was referring to is a system where instead of voting for a single candidate, you rank the candidates in order of preference. So in yesterday's election, I might have voted McClintock > Arnold > Jim Weir > Georgy > Bustamante. There are a whole bunch of algorithms for determining a winner which usually produce the same winner in realistic scenarios, but have different behavior in various corner cases.

The simplest (but not best) method is as follows: If a candidate actually gets 50% of the first-choice votes, they win (this part is common to all methods). Otherwise, you find the candidate with the least number of first-choice votes and remove him from consideration. The candidate's name is deleted from every vote which included it--if the candidate was somebody's first choice, their second choice becomes their new first choice, etc. This process is repeated until some candidate has 50% of the first-choice votes.

The benefit of a system like this is that it is generally optimal for a voter to list the candidates in the order that they actually prefer them. You can vote for a minor candidate without "wasting" your vote, as you can still indicate a preference between the major candidates which will have as much weight as if you had not voted for the minor candidate. And, depending on exactly which algorithm is chosen, there is a good chance in a multi-candidate race that a "consensus" candidate will be found the winner.

--John
Posted by: Ahnold

Re: California and Arnie? - 08/10/2003 14:22

Fihst off, I want to staht by saying thank you to all of my suppohtahs and campaignahs, without whom my victory would not have been possible. To those who said it couldn't be done, what you say now?

My first act as govenah of California will be to tehminate all of the democrats who played dihty political tricks by mentioning my groping of women. My second act will be to grope as many women as possible. Applications for gropees will be available in the Govenah's office. Aftah that, don't expect to see much of me, because the Govenah campaign is just a stepping stone to my goal to become President and tehminate the entire country!

Asta la vista, baby!
Posted by: tfabris

Re: California and Arnie? - 08/10/2003 14:42

my daily rant
Interesting rant! Except the part where you said:

Since I didn’t vote, I’m not going to venture an opinion one way or the other about Governor Schwarzeneggar.
.... and then proceeded to give opinions about both Gray and Arnie.

Don't get me wrong, I think they were interesting opinions and worth reading. I just didn't expect them to appear after you made that statement.
Posted by: 753

Re: California and Arnie? - 08/10/2003 14:55

What are your views if you live there?

I don't live in California. But the kind and amount of coverage we get here in Austria about a foreign election is irritating.
Posted by: DWallach

Re: California and Arnie? - 08/10/2003 14:57

I strongly suspect that there are many voters who would have preferred McClintock over Arnold, but voted for Arnold because they preferred him to Bustamante.

We'll never know for sure, but it's probably fair to assume that in any sort of ranking system, more people would put Arnold ahead of McClintock than vice versa. That's why, in my hypothetical exercise, I added McClintock's votes to Arnold. Likewise for adding Huffington's votes to Bustamante.

Regardless, I still support the idea of a non-traditional voting system. I've mentioned it here before, but my favorite is approval voting. You can cast votes for as many candidates as you want (zero or one vote per candidate), and all those votes count equally. You can vote for Arnold and McClintock. You can vote for Nader and Gore. You don't get to express your rankings among your choices, but you do get rid of the incentive to vote "strategically" rather than for your true preferences.

The arguments against multiple voting systems with ranking tend to be that they still encourage strategic voting in some form or another. Your second and third choices can start to have a serious impact on the election's outcome, and it's entirely unclear whether voters can meaningfully rank all their candidates. Also, on an entirely practical level, approval voting requires only one bit per candidate, so it meshes nicely with most existing voting equipment, including punch cards.

My fear, in an approval voting system, is that a plurality of Californians would have cast a "serious" vote plus some "joke" votes, just for fun, and then you'd end up with a porn star for governor.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: California and Arnie? - 08/10/2003 15:13

I'd hardly call her a star. She's only been in 31 movies and the vast majority of those appearances have been lesbian-only scenes. She's barely a starlet. To be honest, I'm pretty sure that neither I nor my porn-addicted friends had ever heard of her before her candidacy.
Posted by: rompel

Re: California and Arnie? - 08/10/2003 15:49

Regardless, I still support the idea of a non-traditional voting system. I've mentioned it here before, but my favorite is approval voting. You can cast votes for as many candidates as you want (zero or one vote per candidate), and all those votes count equally. You can vote for Arnold and McClintock. You can vote for Nader and Gore. You don't get to express your rankings among your choices, but you do get rid of the incentive to vote "strategically" rather than for your true preferences.

I disagree with that last statement. Suppose there are three candidates A, B, and C where I love A, am OK with B, and hate C. Clearly I would vote for A and not for C. But my decision on B depends on whether I think C has any chance of winning and on whether I think A has any chance of winning. For example, if the polls are showing 20/40/40, I will vote for B. If the polls are showing 40/40/20, I won't. If the polls are 33/33/33 then I have to decide whether I love A more or less than I fear C. That seems a lot like strategic voting to me.

--John

Posted by: Foz

Re: California and Arnie? - 08/10/2003 16:18

Actually, you'd be incorrect. My opinioin was about the hypocrisy of the campaign... as well as observations on character. Not once did I say "yes, I think arnie is the right man" or "no, I think davis is a great governor" etc.

I never excused myself from having opinions about the people as individuals. I even went on to say I really have no idea whether he'll be a good governor or not (and for the record, I CAN rant about davis, because I did vote against him last time )

-- Gary
Posted by: DWallach

Re: California and Arnie? - 08/10/2003 23:26

The trick with non-standard voting schemes is that the art of polling gets completely shaken up. When you can cast more than one vote, the polls won't add to 100% any more. Instead, assuming you had amazing polls that were able to get the full state of how voters would vote, and if you were using approval voting, then there would be some ability to vote strategically. If your top two candidates are tied, you could choose not to give any preference to your #2 pick, with all the risks that some unforseen event could render that a bad choice.

Indubitably, the presence of polls has a radical effect on the electorate. I wonder sometime whether polls "predicting" a strong showing by a candidate can create one, as people get on board with the winner or lower-valued candidates are convinced they should drop from the race.

There are a pile of papers linked from the sites I mentioned above. If I get a spare couple days, I'll try to read them all over. The mathematics of these systems have been studied for quite a long time...
Posted by: JeffS

Re: California and Arnie? - 09/10/2003 05:27

All this talk about polling reminds me of an Asimov short story where computers (or the infamous Multivac, actually) get so good predicting polls that it can do it after only one "vote" by a single person. This "vote" turns out to be more of just sharing his understanding and feelings on a variety of topics with the computer. Talk about a bit of pressure though!