The "Buzz"

From this morning's Sacramento Bee's "Buzz" feature:

Bus route to Arnold appointment

Two years ago, Cheryl Bly-Chester roamed the state with a bus of unknown candidates in the 2003 recall, tailing Schwarzenegger on the campaign trail.

Bly-Chester, a Roseville engineer, helped organize the multiday bus tour from San Diego to Northern California in a desperate attempt to attract media attention in the 135-candidate race.

The bus tour didn't make Bly-Chester famous - she won 4,527 votes to finish 17th that year. But she credits her two-month foray into campaigning for her nomination last week to the state Reclamation Board, California's lead flood-control agency.

Schwarzenegger apparently didn't hold any grudges against his former opponent.

"Technically, he ran against me because he declared after me," Bly-Chester mused. "I think he had a good sense of proportion about the whole thing."

Bly-Chester said she has supported Schwarzenegger since he took office and has become active in Placer County Republican politics since the recall.

Dramatic Board Replacement

I didn't realize how much attention Cheryl Bly-Chester's appointment would gather. The replacement of the entire state reclamation board was today's LEAD story in the Sacramento Bee!

Courtesy of former 2003 gubernatorial candidate Diana Foss, here is the story, from the LA Times.

Appointment of Cheryl Bly-Chester to the State of California Reclamation Board

Since the 2003 Gubernatorial Recall Election, former candidate Cheryl Bly-Chester has been working patiently with the Schwarzenegger Administration to find an appropriate place within state government for her many skills. She was determined, at first, to get an appointment within the Department of Conservation, but her efforts there ultimately came to naught. Nevertheless, she didn't give up her ambition to serve the State of California.

Today, Cheryl Bly-Chester announces her appointment to the State of California Reclamation Board! (I'm looking for the presse release, but don't see it yet....)

In 2004, Cheryl worked on issues regarding relief to California National Guard families.

Many, many congratulations to her!

The 135 Candidates of 2003 Soldier On!

According to The Carpetbagger:

If scandal-ridden Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-Calif.) runs for re-election, as he claims he will, he'll have to deal with a primary challenge for the first time in his career. Businessman George Schwartzman, who runs a health records management company, announced yesterday that he will take on Cunningham next year.

George Schwartzmann - he ran as one of the 135 candidates in the 2003 California gubernatorial recall election!

Mary Carey Aligns Herself With Bush

Ah, so she begins to make good on her promise to run for President in 2012 (a promise made in the April 2004 issue of Hustler), by cozying to the Republicans!:

Last week, Carl Forti, communications director for the National Republican Congressional Committee, explained to WND that self-described pornographer Mark Kulkis and his date, porn star Mary Carey, will be attending the two-day event, "The 2005 President's Dinner and Salute to Freedom," next Monday and Tuesday because their money is just as good as anyone else's.

The Spirit of 2003

Drudge ran this for the supposed shock value of Howard Dean quoting scripture against Republicans, but what I found most striking was Dean's encouragement of political participation - what motivated 135 (plus some write-in) candidates to run for Governor of California in 2003! Good for him!:

Dean said he wanted the audience to focus not only on national politics but also on state and local elections.

He urged every person present to run for office.

"How many people in the audience think they can't be just as good a
president as George W. Bush?" he said, prompting a wave of applause and
laughter.

He encouraged those not able to run to donate "$10 or $15" to a political candidate they support or donate their time to a political campaign.

"It's not about Republicans and Democrats, but about democracy that works," he said. "I'd rather see someone go to work for a Republican campaign than sit on their butt."

Chuck Pineda for Congress

The March 8th election is approaching. Sacramento-area Democrats will choose a successor for U.S. Congressman Robert Matsui. Despite widow Doris Matsui's favored position in the election, I nevertheless support Charles (Chuck) Pineda, Jr. for the post. Why? Chuck was one of the 135 gubernatorial candidates in the 2003 Recall Election, and I got to meet him. Nice guy. Pineda is very concerned about keeping youths away from gang activity - he himself had faced similar pressures growing up in East Los Angeles.

An unfortunate consequence of any campaign is that candidates tend to define themselves and others in harsh terms. Pineda's anti-gay-marriage position has proved difficult:

Charles Pineda Jr. had to defend his Democratic credentials after Julie Padilla told him he ought to rethink his party registration when he said he opposes gay marriage. Pineda insisted later that many Democrats agree with him.

I've always believed that liberals need to concerned primarily with economic matters, not life-style matters. Pineda may be 'conservative' regarding gay marriage, but on economic matters, he is a solid liberal. Gay marriage is a godsend of a wedge issue that Republicans use to split Democrats apart. We should ignore Republican wedge issues and focus on what keeps liberal Democrats together. Gay marriage is inappropriate as a wedge issue, particularly when Social Security needs to be saved from the 'piratizers.'

Vote Pineda on March 8th!

Schwarzenegger Kicks Sand in Face of 98-Pound Weakling State GOP

Interesting! Two years ago, Schwarzenegger couldn't win a fair Republican primary, and today he's completely locked out the intraparty competition! It's appropriate that Dora Kingsley resigned - that was the only honorable course!

See Arnold Run

I was curious about the A&E television film, to see if any reference was made to the other gubernatorial candidates. No references, of course: it was all Arnold worship, all the time. I was most surprised how little mention was made of Tom McClintock and Cruz Bustamante (but, of course, both remain in state government, and I'm sure out of prudence, the filmmakers kept references to these important figures to a bare minimum).

One scene caught my eye, though. The (uncredited) photographer taking pictures of Bodybuilder Arnold with three lovelies on the beach sure looked like David Hume Kennerly, a photojournalist who helped start a Web Site called Candidate Camera. Gateway, Inc., passed out digital cameras to the candidates and encouraged them to take photos of their individual campaigns. A handful of the images are still on-line.

Recall Alumni At Work

Leonard Padilla and Chuck Pineda, Jr., both 2003 California Recall gubernatorial candidate alumni, have announced their candidacies for late Robert Matsui's Sacramento congressional seat.

Chuck Pineda's passion is turning juveniles away from gangs and gang violence. It seems to me his interests are perfectly suited for the environment these days in the U.S. House of Representatives.

(Matsui's death caught us all a bit flat-footed: otherwise, more of us might have run for the seat. The 500-signature deadline is Monday, January 24th).

The Recall Candidates: One Year Later!

Courtesy of Diana Foss:

Here on the first anniversary of the election, we're back in the news. Here's an article about Jack Grisham and here's one featuring more candidates.

Jay Leno Back-Tracks

Jay Leno says, “I’m not conservative. I’ve never voted that way in my life.” Wouldn't have guessed it from his actions in last year's Recall campaign!

Dear Russo, Marsh & Rogers

Last year, with the recall effort against Governor Gray Davis, many of us appreciated your leadership role in the state GOP in promoting healthy political debate. This year, I'm appalled to learn you are taking a leadership role in trying to get theaters from showing Michael Moore's new movie, "Fahrenheit 911." How hypocritical is that? That's a decision for theater management to make, based on what they believe audience interest is, without pressure from you. It's time you jokers back off!

Marc Valdez
(Former) Candidate for California Governor
http://marcvaldezcalgov.blogspot.com

Carpe Diem!

I have produced a first draft of a book, called "Carpe Diem! - The 2003 California Recall Election and the Candidates' Forum" (Across an Oz-like California, aspiring amateur politicos band together on an elusive search for support).

Today, I E-Mailed the first draft to five of the other gubernatorial candidates (Renz, Foss, Weir, Badiozamani, and Gorman), to get their reactions and criticisms. In two weeks, I hope to have their feedback. After an extensive update, I hope to find a publisher.

More Navel Gazing

The 2003 California Gubernatorial Election has now been certified by Secretary of State Kevin Shelley. Of the 1,837 votes I received (once again, thank you!) nearly one-third came from Los Angeles County. If I correct for population, however, it appears I was most popular in Monterey (where 1.8 voters in a thousand voted for me), Imperial, San Benito and Inyo Counties, which I suspect means that rural-oriented Mexican-American voters are my natural base of support. It's a bit of surprise, really, since my anti-Proposition 13 campaign was based upon fixing the state budget, but one takes ones support where one can find it. If I run again, I will focus harder on Mexican-American concerns.

Looking at the results of some of the other Hispanic candidates, a similar pattern emerges, with Monterey, Imperial, Inyo, and other rural counties high on the lists for Ralph Hernandez, Leonard Padilla, Daniel Ramirez, etc. There are some interesting fluctuations, though. For example, Mr. Ramirez got a cluster of votes from Yuba County, whereas I got none from there. Is that a pro-life Hispanic vote there?

Of the 1,837 votes, here's the county breakdown. In the first table, the number of votes, with the percentage of my total vote. In the second table, correcting for population, the percentage of the total voting population that voted for me:

Table 1: The number of my votes, with the percentage of my total vote from each county

Preliminary__________________Final
Los Angeles_____504__33.60%__Los Angeles_____590__32.118%
Ventura_________139__9.267%__Monterey________167__9.091%
Alameda_________115__7.667%__Ventura_________150__8.165%
San Diego________58__3.867%__Alameda_________128__6.968%
Monterey_________54__3.600%__San Diego________73__3.974%
San Francisco____49__3.267%__Santa Clara______62__3.375%
Santa Cruz_______46__3.067%__San Francisco____58__3.157%
Santa Clara______45__3.000%__Santa Cruz_______54__2.940%
Orange___________45__3.000%__Orange___________49__2.667%
San Bernardino___34__2.267%__San Bernardino___41__2.232%
Riverside________34__2.267%__Santa Barbara____40__2.177%
Santa Barbara____33__2.200%__Riverside________37__2.014%
Fresno___________32__2.133%__Sacramento_______36__1.960%
Sacramento_______31__2.067%__San Mateo________34__1.851%
San Mateo________29__1.933%__Fresno___________33__1.796%
Contra Costa_____23__1.533%__Contra Costa_____27__1.470%
Sonoma___________20__1.333%__Imperial_________22__1.198%
Imperial_________18__1.200%__Sonoma___________21__1.143%
Yolo_____________16__1.067%__San Benito_______18__0.980%
San Joaquin______15__1.000%__San Joaquin______16__0.871%
San Benito_______14__0.933%__Stanislaus_______16__0.871%
Marin____________13__0.867%__Yolo_____________16__0.871%
Kern_____________13__0.867%__Marin____________14__0.762%
Stanislaus_______12__0.800%__Kern_____________13__0.708%
Tulare___________10__0.667%__Solano___________12__0.653%
Solano___________10__0.667%__Humboldt_________11__0.599%
Napa_____________10__0.667%__Napa_____________11__0.599%
Humboldt_________10__0.667%__Tulare___________11__0.599%
San Luis Obispo___7__0.467%__Inyo_____________10__0.544%
Mendocino_________6__0.400%__San Luis Obispo___9__0.490%
Nevada____________5__0.333%__Mendocino_________6__0.327%
Merced____________5__0.333%__Nevada____________6__0.327%
Madera____________5__0.333%__Madera____________5__0.272%
Inyo______________5__0.333%__Merced____________5__0.272%
Butte_____________5__0.333%__Butte_____________4__0.218%
Kings_____________4__0.267%__El Dorado_________4__0.218%
El Dorado_________4__0.267%__Kings_____________4__0.218%
Shasta____________3__0.200%__Calaveras_________3__0.163%
Placer____________3__0.200%__Placer____________3__0.163%
Calaveras_________3__0.200%__Plumas____________3__0.163%
Tuolumne__________2__0.133%__Shasta____________3__0.163%
Mono______________2__0.133%__Lake______________2__0.109%
Mariposa__________2__0.133%__Mariposa__________2__0.109%
Lake______________2__0.133%__Mono______________2__0.109%
Tehama____________1__0.067%__Tuolumne__________2__0.109%
Sutter____________1__0.067%__Glenn_____________1__0.054%
Siskiyou__________1__0.067%__Siskiyou__________1__0.054%
Plumas____________1__0.067%__Sutter____________1__0.054%
Glenn_____________1__0.067%__Tehama____________1__0.054%


Table 2: The percentage of each county's total voting population that voted for me

Monterey_________0.1826%
Inyo_____________0.1500%
San Benito_______0.1357%
Imperial_________0.1045%
Ventura__________0.0662%
Santa Cruz_______0.0621%
Mono_____________0.0610%
Plumas___________0.0354%
Santa Barbara____0.0337%
Alameda__________0.0332%
Yolo_____________0.0301%
Los Angeles______0.0301%
Mariposa_________0.0289%
Napa_____________0.0270%
San Francisco____0.0246%
Humboldt_________0.0243%
Mendocino________0.0224%
Madera___________0.0192%
Fresno___________0.0183%
Kings____________0.0180%
San Mateo________0.0174%
Calaveras________0.0171%
Stanislaus_______0.0159%
Santa Clara______0.0151%
Tulare___________0.0150%
Marin____________0.0143%
Nevada___________0.0143%
Glenn____________0.0141%
Sonoma___________0.0134%
Lake_____________0.0132%
Merced___________0.0125%
San Joaquin______0.0121%
Solano___________0.0121%
San Bernardino___0.0113%
San Luis Obispo__0.0100%
Tuolumne_________0.0098%
Sacramento_______0.0096%
Riverside________0.0094%
Contra Costa_____0.0093%
San Diego________0.0089%
Kern_____________0.0083%
Siskiyou_________0.0065%
Orange___________0.0063%
El Dorado________0.0059%
Butte____________0.0058%
Tehama___________0.0058%
Shasta___________0.0054%
Sutter___________0.0043%
Placer___________0.0025%

Another, Similar Letter

I fired this one off to the Sacramento Bee. I hope they publish it!
----------------------------------------

The unanticipated popularity and efficacy of the recent gubernatorial recall election has prompted numerous suggestions for reform that would actually strip the recall option of its greatest virtues (Sacramento Bee op-ed by Bill Whalen 10/28; also Assemblymember Mark Ridley-Thomas' proposed constitutional amendment 10/22). It's time to fling these arguments back in the faces of these 'reformers', many of whom have apparently forgotten what a properly-functioning democracy is supposed to look like.

Replying to an oft-repeated falsehood, the recent recall election was not part of a national pattern suggested by the 2000 Florida election debacle or the Texas legislative redistricting problem. The California recall was democracy's healthy response to a particular California injustice. In 2002, Gray Davis was elected in an illegitimate manner. Davis interfered in the Republican primary, spending large amounts of money to elevate the candidacy of a weaker rival, Bill Simon. Davis was successful in his effort to deny Richard Riordan the Republican nomination, and thus deprive California voters of Davis' strongest viable opponent. Democracy is always threatened when the stronger candidate chooses his opponent. The 2002 gubernatorial election became a farce, with all the trappings of legitimacy, but stripped of content, and low voter turnout demonstrated that voters understood the fraud. Where were the 'reformers' then, with their supposed high-minded concern? Nowhere, which is why the recall was necessary! The 2003 victor, Arnold Schwarzenegger will be not be recalled soon, if at all - superior voter turnout and plentiful voter choices helped seal his election's legitimacy.

Regarding proposed reforms for future recall elections, there's no need for a higher signature threshold, or for more-specific grounds to qualify a recall. Remember, impeachment has never been restricted only to criminal acts. And what can be done about illegitimate elections except rerun them? Preservation of democracy from questionable actions by the candidates, such as interfering in an opposition party's primary, demands that a recall option be available and relatively easy to invoke.

The argument that it should be hard to qualify a recall rests on the need for an officeholder to enjoy a period with few distractions in order to be free to govern. In 2003, despite a severe budget emergency, Gray Davis proposed little except stopgap measures, just as he had the year before - Davis' choice was to hobble into the next year, and pray for an economic miracle. So much for the advantages of having a new term in office. Indeed, it wasn't until Davis had the blowtorch of a recall election on him that he seemed to act at all. Davis' inaction shreds the argument that the officeholder needs few distractions, and given his questionable election, he never deserved such time anyway.

Regarding ballot access, there are two apparent problems, not just one: a crowded ballot vs. a ballot with non-serious candidates. The crowded ballot problem is a technical matter that can and should be settled rather easily by the county registrars. And what's so bad anyway about having a ballot crowded with serious candidates? More points of view that can be aired - more choices - isn't that what America should be all about anyway? Serious political messages can start small and spread quickly. And why not? Even critics like Loyola University Professor Richard Hasen now concede that concerns about voter confusion in the recall election were overblown.

As is only too evident in modern American elections, any mechanism to narrow the list of candidates, like a runoff or higher entrance requirements, serves instead to stunt public interest. The major source of illegitimacy in modern elections is lack of choice, not a divided field. Open your eyes and look at the 2003 recall election! Big field, higher turnout! That was not an accident! Even if celebrities had been absent from the ballot, turnout would have been high. I suspect that if Schwarzenegger had looked less like a winner the week before the election, and the result of the election even more in question, the turnout would have been yet higher. And it was still possible for Schwarzenegger to gain a commanding majority, without an unseemly division of the electorate (pre-election fears about that possibility were WAY overblown!)

The signature threshold and fee requirements for the recall election were the same as they had always been for any previous gubernatorial election. What provoked many candidates to join the race this time (apart from the evident self-promotion opportunities), was a remarkable display of political incompetence by the Democrats - the effort to impose party discipline and not run any Democratic Party candidate at all on the second part of the recall ballot. What's a good Democrat supposed to do - let the Republicans take the post unopposed? Or try to rouse obvious incompetents to do the job instead? I, for one, chose to run, and so should have you!

Still, to help narrow the choices of the voters, just as a practical matter to narrow the field, an instant runoff voting (IRV) procedure would help: choice of candidate is preserved, and yet it is possible for a legitimate majority to be determined. Why don't the reformers push IRV, if they are so keen on election reform?

Regarding a ballot with non-serious candidates, remember, there are large concentrations of non-serious wealth in the United States, particularly in California. If requirements are raised, only porn merchants and performance artists will be able to afford access to the ballot. Serious folks will be excluded, to everyone's detriment. It's a distraction having non-serious folks on the ballot, but it's better to let them in, in order to allow the serious others to have a shot as well. You can raise ballot requirements high enough to exclude the Green Party, high enough to exclude the Republicans and Democrats, but never high enough to exclude Hustler Magazine!

The virtue of a populist recall effort is that it is open to the people. You can't get popular energy behind an election if it's not open to the people, or at least to their tribunes. Remember, even with 135 names on the ballot, that was still only one candidate per quarter million people: with only five candidates on the ballot with Hispanic surnames, in a state that's one-third Hispanic, a good argument can be made that there weren't nearly enough candidates on the ballot, not too many. Many people, like 'reformer' Whalen, are willing to concede the recall was a success, because of the higher voter turnout and media interest, but remember, the only reason the voter turnout was higher was because the election was open to all comers. The 'reformers' want to squelch the very attribute that made the recall election a success! We must protect our elections from such 'reformers'!

Letter to Mark Ridley-Thomas

Dear Mr. Ridley-Thomas:

I was annoyed with your proposed constitutional amendment regarding recall election laws, as reported in the Sacramento Bee:

The Los Angeles Democrat would increase the number of signatures to 12 percent of registered voters, rather than the current requirement for 12 percent of the number of votes cast in the last election for that office.

His bill also would ban statewide initiatives from the recall ballot and designate the lieutenant governor as the replacement when voters kick the governor out of office.

"This (recall) process seems to be flawed in so many ways," Erwin Chemerinsky, USC law professor, said. "It was far too easy to get the recall on the ballot. ... It was far too easy for people to qualify to be candidates."

Since only 60% of the state's electorate typically votes in a gubernatorial election, changing the basis to election qualification from 12 percent of the number of votes cast in the last election for governor, to 12 percent of registered voters, would effectively change the election requirement to 20 percent of the number of votes cast in the last election for governor.

The argument that it should be hard to qualify a recall rests on the need for the officeholder to enjoy a period with few distractions, in order to be free to govern, and in order to propose necessary changes in governance. That presupposes that the officeholder has been elected in a legitimate manner, however. In 2002, Gray Davis was elected in a manner that called into question the legitimacy of his election. Davis interfered in the Republican primary, spending large amounts of money to damage the prospects of his strongest potential rival, Richard Riordan, and elevate the candidacy of a weaker rival, Bill Simon. Davis was successful in his effort to deny Riordan the Republican nomination, and thus deprive California voters of Davis' strongest viable opponent. Democracy is always threatened when the stronger candidate has free reign to choose his opponent. The election became something of a farce after that, and the low voter turnout in the statewide 2002 election demonstrated that voters understood the game well enough. Preservation of democracy from questionable actions by the candidates thus demands that a recall option be available, and that it should be relatively easy to invoke.

In 2003, in his new term as governor, despite a severe budget emergency, Davis proposed little except stopgap measures, just as he had the year before - Davis' choice was to hobble into the next year, and pray for an economic miracle. So much for the advantages of having a new term in office with few distractions. Indeed, it wasn't until Davis had the white-hot blow torch of a recall election on him until he seemed to act at all to address the state's problems. Given Davis' sorry record, a better argument can be made for automatically invoking a recall process the instant any governor takes his/her oath of office, than for making recall elections nearly impossible to qualify. Given his questionable election, Davis never deserved a period with few distractions in office, and wasn't able to make good use of the distraction-free time he had anyway.

There is no particular reason why the lieutenant governor should automatically succeed in the event of a recall of the governor. If the legitimacy of the election is clouded, as in 2002, then the lieutenant governor should automatically NOT succeed, unless the lieutenant governor should win as a candidate in the recall election.

There is some advantage in placing statewide initiatives on the recall ballot - a larger voter turnout, for example. There is no reason to exclude statewide initiatives from the recall ballot.

Regarding an increase in nomination signature and filing fee requirements for recall candidates, I think there are two problems, not just one: a crowded ballot vs. a ballot with non-serious candidates. The crowded ballot problem is a technical matter that can and should be settled rather easily. And what's so bad anyway about having a ballot crowded with serious candidates? More points of view that can be aired - more choices - isn't that what America should be all about anyway? Serious political messages can start small, and quickly spread in a meme-like way. And why not?

As is only too evident in modern American elections, ANY mechanism to narrow the list of candidates, like a runoff, or a primary, or higher requirements, serves instead to stunt public interest. THE major source of illegitimacy in modern elections is lack of choice (e.g., Davis vs. Simon, 2002), not a field divided among many candidates. In any event, open your eyes and look at the 2003 recall election! Big field, higher turnout! That was not an accident - even if a celebrity like Schwarzenegger had been absent from the ballot, turnout would likely have been higher than in 2002! In fact, I suspect if Schwarzenegger had looked less like a winner the week before the election, and the result of the election even more in question, the turnout would have been even higher than it was. And it was still possible for Schwarzenegger to gain a commanding majority, without an unseemly division of the electorate (pre-election fears about that possibility were WAY, WAY overblown!)

Still, to help narrow the choices of the voters, just as a practical matter, an instant runoff voting procedure would help: choice of candidate is preserved, and yet it is possible for a legitimate majority to be determined.

Regarding a ballot with non-serious candidates, remember, there are large concentrations of non-serious wealth in the United States, particularly in California. If requirements are raised, only porn merchants, ex-sitcom stars, and performance artists will be able to afford access to the ballot. Serious folks will be absolutely excluded, to everyone's detriment. It's a distraction having non-serious folks on the ballot, but it's better to let them in, in order to allow the serious others to have a shot as well. You can raise requirements high enough to exclude the Green Party, but not high enough to exclude Hustler Magazine. You can raise requirements high enough to exclude the Republican and Democratic Parties, but never high enough to exclude Hustler Magazine!

Mr. Ridley-Thomas, in the light of the experience of the 2003 election, please reconsider. Indeed, some people, like Professor Richard Hasen, already have. In this pre-election article, Hasen made five suggestions:

Increase the signature requirements to recall elected officials to 25%, as it is in most states.

Increase the nomination signature requirements, to prevent a very crowded ballot that complicates voting.

Increase the time between the certification of the recall and the date of the election to no earlier than 90 days after certification.

Implement some procedure, such as a runoff, to narrow the successor candidates in part two of the recall ballot. With a plurality vote, someone who gains as little as 15 percent of the vote could be the next governor, a recipe for illegitimacy. Another possible fix is the "single transferable vote," or instant runoff voting, with a formula that picks a majority winner.

Clean up the inconsistencies in the recall law, and make sure that the laws do not violate the U.S. Constitution.

In this post-election article Hasen still feels the signature requirement to recall elected officials should be raised to 25%. Regarding the size of the ballot, however, he admits that "concerns about voter confusion are overblown". Follow Hasen's lead! Reevaluate your proposal in the light of actual experience! Or at least follow a two-track approach of the sort Hasen apparently now favors - a wish list of controversial reforms that may or may not get enacted (because some of the 'reforms' are transparently stupid), and a list of technical changes that it would be good to get adopted, no matter what.

A bigger concern remains about whether voter technology is suitable to the task - punch-card ballots, for example. But a big part of that problem isn't technology per se, it's the way we implement technology. Take the way the alphabet was semi-randomized for the ballot, for example. Despite semi-randomization, candidates were still grouped together based on last name, no matter where they appeared on the ballot. I've noticed that all the minor candidates on either side of either Cruz Bustamante or Arnold Schwarzenegger on the ballot did pretty well in the election - Burton, Bly-Chester, Strauss, and Schwartzmann - a few mistaken votes may have played some part in those good-showings - votes that can accumulate significantly in as large an election as for Governor of California. That's not a problem with old vs. new technology, it's just a dumb way to use technology, old or new. True randomization of name order should have been used instead.

Remember, instant-runoff voting preserves voter choice, as a runoff or primary election does not, and is thus a superior way to pick a majority winner.

I strongly doubt Schwarzenegger will be recalled soon, if at all - superior voter turnout and plentiful choices helped seal his election's legitimacy. Only serious failures in office will open that wound again soon.

Sincerely,

Marc Valdez
(Former) Candidate for California Governor
http://marcvaldezcalgov.blogspot.com

Post-Election Breakdown

Of the 1,500 votes I received (once again, thank you!) a full-one-third came from Los Angeles County. If I correct for population, however, it appears I was most popular in San Benito (where 1.2 voters in a thousand voted for me), Imperial, and Inyo Counties, which I suspect means that rural-oriented Mexican-American voters are my natural base of support. It's a bit of surprise, really, since my anti-Proposition 13 campaign was based upon fixing the state budget, but one takes ones support where one can find it. If I run again, I will focus harder on Mexican-American concerns.

Of the 1,500 votes, here's the county breakdown. In the first table, the number of votes, with the percentage of my total vote. In the second table, correcting for population, the percentage of the total voting population that voted for me:

Table 1: The number of my votes, with the percentage of my total vote from each county

Los Angeles______________504_____________33.600%
Ventura__________________139______________9.267%
Alameda__________________115______________7.667%
San_Diego_________________58______________3.867%
Monterey__________________54______________3.600%
San_Francisco_____________49______________3.267%
Santa_Cruz________________46______________3.067%
Santa_Clara_______________45______________3.000%
Orange____________________45______________3.000%
San_Bernardino____________34______________2.267%
Riverside_________________34______________2.267%
Santa_Barbara_____________33______________2.200%
Fresno____________________32______________2.133%
Sacramento________________31______________2.067%
San_Mateo_________________29______________1.933%
Contra_Costa______________23______________1.533%
Sonoma____________________20______________1.333%
Imperial__________________18______________1.200%
Yolo______________________16______________1.067%
San_Joaquin_______________15______________1.000%
San_Benito________________14______________0.933%
Marin_____________________13______________0.867%
Kern______________________13______________0.867%
Stanislaus________________12______________0.800%
Tulare____________________10______________0.667%
Solano____________________10______________0.667%
Napa______________________10______________0.667%
Humboldt__________________10______________0.667%
San_Luis_Obispo____________7______________0.467%
Mendocino__________________6______________0.400%
Nevada_____________________5______________0.333%
Merced_____________________5______________0.333%
Madera_____________________5______________0.333%
Inyo_______________________5______________0.333%
Butte______________________5______________0.333%
Kings______________________4______________0.267%
El_Dorado__________________4______________0.267%
Shasta_____________________3______________0.200%
Placer_____________________3______________0.200%
Calaveras__________________3______________0.200%
Tuolumne___________________2______________0.133%
Mono_______________________2______________0.133%
Mariposa___________________2______________0.133%
Lake_______________________2______________0.133%
Tehama_____________________1______________0.067%
Sutter_____________________1______________0.067%
Siskiyou___________________1______________0.067%
Plumas_____________________1______________0.067%
Glenn______________________1______________0.067%




Table 2: The percentage of each county's total voting population that voted for me

San_Benito______________0.121097%
Imperial________________0.101948%
Inyo____________________0.097314%
Monterey________________0.082464%
Ventura_________________0.073709%
Mono____________________0.062441%
Santa_Cruz______________0.060518%
Santa_Barbara___________0.032586%
Alameda_________________0.032383%
Yolo____________________0.032309%
Mariposa________________0.030062%
Los_Angeles_____________0.028781%
Napa____________________0.026818%
Mendocino_______________0.023633%
San_Francisco___________0.023257%
Humboldt________________0.023091%
Fresno__________________0.019395%
Madera__________________0.019237%
Kings___________________0.018039%
Calaveras_______________0.017914%
San_Mateo_______________0.016251%
Tulare__________________0.015121%
Glenn___________________0.015101%
Marin___________________0.014240%
Sonoma__________________0.014163%
Santa_Clara_____________0.013845%
Stanislaus______________0.013530%
Lake____________________0.013204%
Nevada__________________0.012858%
Merced__________________0.012534%
San_Joaquin_____________0.012167%
Plumas__________________0.011960%
Solano__________________0.011139%
San_Bernardino__________0.011084%
Tuolumne________________0.010540%
Sacramento______________0.009712%
Riverside_______________0.009302%
Kern____________________0.008856%
Contra_Costa____________0.008786%
San_Luis_Obispo_________0.008676%
San_Diego_______________0.008229%
Butte___________________0.008080%
Siskiyou________________0.006902%
El_Dorado_______________0.006359%
Orange__________________0.006315%
Tehama__________________0.006115%
Shasta__________________0.005719%
Sutter__________________0.004652%
Placer__________________0.002731%

Thank You!

With 100% of the precincts now reporting, it now appears I got 1499 votes! 46th place in a field of 135: about 1/3 from the top. Ballot placement helped - I was third on the ballot list in LA County, and I got about 500 votes there. The Hispanic name no doubt helped. Plus maybe a video that played on cable access channels in the LA area.

Yolo County, where I do musical theater, was not as productive as I had hoped: 16 votes, if I'm not mistaken. I need to look into the matter more deeply and see what happened. It's very strange to see who got votes and who didn't. Some good people did badly, and others did quite well!

From the bottom of my heart, I would like to thank those who placed their confidence in me, and trusted me with their vote. I will never forget!

The Votes Roll In!

1490+ and climbing! More than 500 from LA County (good ballot placement there - third on the list, I believe). Plus, who knows, maybe I made an impression down there, with Whetstone's video, and all.

Not enough to beat Arnold, of course. But better than some good candidates.

My first impressions, looking at the vote totals:

Did Schwartzmann do so well because his name is similar to Schwarzenegger?

I'm surprised how well Lawrence Strauss did. His campaign went into semi-hibernation when he reached his $1000 campaign limit, and so I thought he'd fade. Guess not! He's an attractive candidate!

Cheryl Bly-Chester did very well too - she's an attractive candidate too!

Margolin, Burton, Vo, Palmieri, Louie, and Robinson all did better than I expected.

Zellhoefer, Renz, Dole, Friedman, Scheidle, Pineda, and Vandeventer did worse than I expected.

A lot of things to think over in this election. I thought there was a good chance this election was going to be the rare California election where issues dominate personalities, and I need to reflect on whether that actually occurred, or not.