Talk:2003 California recall

An event mentioned in this article is an October 7 selected anniversary.

---

I have already voted (absentee) and the article seems to miss the reason that many of my friends will also vote to remove Gray Davis as Governor. It is not about taxes, although our taxes have become a major deterrent to job creation, nor is it a result of the overall state of the California economy. Rather it is about perceived blatant abuse of office to the point where both Rebublicans and Democrats (I am a registered Libertarian) seem to feel sullied. Whether it is because of the money which flowed in from Indian gaming groups, the dumping of previously banned pollutants in San Francisco Bay, or the pandering to Labor bosses by moves such as pay raises for Prison guards or establishing a Union Shop in the California State University system. we believe that our government is for sale to the highest bidder. When it comes to selecting a replacement for Gray Davis you must admit we have a wonderful range to choose from! How about the Trekkie?

I changed the phrase "governor's mansion at stake" to "governor's office at stake", since the literal mansion has stood unoccupied since Jerry Brown declined to move into it in 1975. Also changed "had large control of" to "had enormous influence over" in the intro about Progressivism.

---

Now that this article exists I think that much of the text in Arnold's and Gray's articles about the recall can be moved here and replaced by summaries. --mav 22:20, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

The California SoS has stated a official list of candidates should be available on 13 Aug. Once this list is posted, I intend to Wiki it here...Any comments? --hoshie

There may be several hundred candidates. RickK, who thinks he's going to vote for Gary Coleman. :)

Just put the whole list at List of 2003 California recall candidates, but keep a short list of the top/most notable candidates here (yes, that includes Gary Coleman). --mav 21:24, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

I have sought in vain for some kind of simple, coherent explanation of how this will actually be voted. News coverage around here focuses mostly on the rarity of the procedure and amused comments on the number and calibre of candidates.

How exactly will it be voted? There are apparently multiple Republican opponents, a few Democrats, and quite a few unclassified candidates. Is Gov. Davis out if any one candidate draws more votes than he gets? or if his three hundred opponents collectively get more votes? Is there any procedure for a runoff? If so, who becomes governor in the interim? Or does the top vote getter in the October election become governor?

Where is Emperor Norton when you need him? -- IHCOYC 14:59, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I am not an elections expert, but this is my impression from the news coverage:

First, you vote for or against the recall.

Secondly, you vote for one of the replacement candidates (which does not include Gov. Davis). You can vote for a candidate whether or not you vote for the recall. The candidates are running as individuals, not as party members.

If the recall passes (simple majority? of votes for/against the recall), the replacement candidate with the most votes (plurality of votes for replacement candidates) becomes the new governor. If the recall doesn't pass, Davis serves out his term. There are no runoffs. --Brion 15:07, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like someone added the information since the last time I looked at the article. The mechanics have not been in any of the local papers that I can recall, and I was curious as to how it worked. -- IHCOYC

According to MSNBC: Davis will lose if he gets 49.9 percent or less on Oct. 7. [1] (http://www.msnbc.com/news/950630.asp) So, If my thinking is correct, Davis needs 50.1% of voters to vote NO on question #1 to stay in office.

As to question #2, CNN says: if voters agree to recall Democratic Gov. Gray Davis -- a candidate needs only a simple plurality of votes. [2] (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/08/10/calif.recall/index.html) If my thinking is correct on question #2, a replacement candidate could win with 25% or less, depending on turnout. --hoshie

Technically, if a plurality is all that is needed, and there are more than 100 candidates, it is possible (though unlikely) that the winner may have fewer than 1% of the votes. Of course, having this many candidates increases the likelihood of ties as well. --- IHCOYC

So someone could be elected on 1) fewer votes than it took to elect Davis and 2) fewer votes than it takes to throw him out. .... Yeah, that makes sense. At least there's no need to worry about hanging chads. Koyaanis Qatsi 03:30, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Actually, there is hanging chad potential. Davis tried to get the election delayed on the basis of the fact that some counties will not have updated to more modern systems of voting by the time of the election, but this appeal was denied. So punch cards will be used, and we may get chad recounts after all! -- Someone else 03:42, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)~

Excellent. Maybe it's not too late to get a Bush involved ... Maybe Neil this time; he hasn't been doing much since the S&L scandal.  ;-) Koyaanis Qatsi 03:43, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Saying '49.9% or less' seems to me an odd way to phrase it unless you wanted imply that he could get a minority of the vote and stay on. Merric

<rant>My Gawd! As an American I'm embarrassed by our "democratic" system of government. First Bush won even though more people voted for Gore and now it looks like some nit-wit with possibly less than 10% of the vote will be the next governor of the largest and most powerful state in the Union. This says nothing of our choices, which include; Arnold "The Terminator" Schwarzenegger, Garry "What you talk'n about Willis!" Coleman, Leo "Smash-o-matic" Gallagher, "Billboard babe" Angelyne, and my favorite, Larry "The smut peddler" Flynt. Whose next? These are sad times for the USA.... Altough I'll probably end-up voting for the Running Man just to oust Davis (whom I despise). </rant>--mav

Oh, come now. How, you ask, could a gubernatorial contest get any better? Here's how: Media:Arnold.jpg :) -- Someone else 07:52, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

LOL. He's got the gay vote (he is pro-gay rights too, BTW). --mav 08:13, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

He may lose the robot vote (http://dieselsweeties.com/archive.php?s=749), though. ;) --Brion 08:31, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In a Fox News Network interview on 27 August 2003, Arnold (stating he supported domestic partnerships but not gay marriages) seems to have made the amusing mis-statement that he believes "homosexual marriage should be between a man and a woman". At least I think that's what I heard... -- Someone else 19:28, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC) (Confirmed, more or less: he actually said "Gay marriage should be between a man and a woman." But it looks like no one's jumping on it. Imagine if Bush had said this during a campaign! -- Someone else 06:59, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC))

---

Travis Kalanick is not on the list. -- 213.73.161.245 00:12, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

I removed the following candidates from the notables list:

Georgy Russell Audie Bock Angelyne Gallagher

The reason they were not removed is that have no recieved coverage in the mainstream news. --hoshie

Gallagher and Angelyne are both very notable, so they were put back in. --mav

CA news is giving plenty of coverage to Coleman, Gallagher, and even Angelyne as candidates. I also say keep them in. --Zippy

inauguration photos

Security at the event was extreme so I wasn't able to get any photos of Arnold, but these other ones may be useful. However, I'm at work right now and don't have the software needed to crop and resize these images. If somebody else can do this before I get home then that would be great. Otherwise I'll get to it latter tonight. Image:Newsvans at Schwarzenegger inauguration_.JPG, Image:Arnold Schwarzenegger inauguration-crowd.jpg, Image:Arnold Schwarzenegger sexual harassment protestors.JPG. --mav 21:31, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Done; 300 and 750 px wide images of each; check my contribution list for filenames. - Hephaestos 21:57, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I had cropped them [from note on Arnold Schwarzenegger talk]; rv if not correct (I didn't know Hephaestos was croppin' them too); mabey links on the all the img desc pg could be place in? JDR

Thanks! Here are the photos for anybody to place in this article:

--mav 22:23, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Opps! I forgot I even took this one. Image:California Secretary of State building on October 7, 2003.jpg. --mav

---

Tom McClintock is referred to as 'state Senator', 'State Senator', and 'state senator'. I'm not sure based on Wikipedia:Typo/capitalization whether it should be 'state senator' or 'state Senator', but it should be consistent. This page is listed in Wikipedia:Typo/capitalization-21. The relevant entry should be removed once the capitalization is fixed. Adjusting