October 7, 2003

Relection Day

Live election results can be found on the Secretary of State’s website. Yahoo News is also tracking the results. Does anyone know of other sites which will be following the outcome?

MoveOn.org and the League of Women Voters both have lists of polling locations.

Todd Dominey has a nice review of Jessie Scanlon’s review of bad ballot design.

And finally, if you’re voting today, please don’t choose Arnold to lead California. I love some of his movies too and it’s appealing to imagine that he will wrestle the government free from special interests but realistically he hasn’t proven himself worthy during the campaign.

Happy voting!

[Update: Doc is voting against the recall. Greenspun expects that Arnold will lose.]

Comments

Sean Peisert

Yes, but the Iowa Electronic Markets for the recall predict that the recall will win and so will Arnold (overwhelmingly).

Not that I’m happy about the situation, but the IEM has been pretty accurate.

Walt Dickinson

Oh well. I guess Jesse made it work. (How great was that Yahoo television ad btw?) =-)

Jessyca Wallace

I guess Iowa Electronic Markets knew what was up. Can I move back to Illinois now?

Nick Runco

well, the Republicans have wanted ‘a new Reagan’ for some time now. it should also be noted that currently Orrin Hatch is making efforts to amend the Constitution to allow naturalized citizens who have been in the country for 20 years or more to run for President. Guess how long Arnold has been in the country?

I, for one, am delighted to see that California has chosen to eliminate a career politician from office. The recall was good for California… I’ve seen a renewed interest in politics unlike anything I’ve ever seen in my lifetime.

I’m not sure what Arnold had to do in order to prove himself “worthy” (does that mean that the other candidates did?), but I’m excited about Arnold’s leadership abilities. His lack of knowledge with regard to our broken political system will be his greatest strength. The fact that the Kennedy’s were there at his side tonight was a remarkable sight to see.

I find him sincere and his vision genuine… he’ll make mistakes and continue to be attacked, but time will tell whether his efforts will help to change the system.

Walt Dickinson

Participation in more than a single, scripted, debate would have helped establish Arnold’s worth. That’s the kind of thing I was talking about. Several of the other candidates, by virtue of their experience, actually expressing their positions on issues, and bothering to show up for the debates proved a degree of worthiness which far outweighed Arnold’s.

Sean: That was fast.

Nick Runco

I don’t understand what people saw in him. He never made any statements. I am not simply on the bandwagon - I am not reading all the claims against him and making my judgment. I really want to know what gives him any credibility. He never even attempted to offer anything. All he did was complain how Davis was doing things wrong. I don’t take much stock in a candidate that complains about problems but offers no solutions.

I am the last person who wants a career politician. I like the “everyman” representing the people, someone who won’t play the games. But Arnold, aside from T.V. ads, never showed that he wasn’t going to pander to special interests. Instead, he first promised he wouldn’t take there money and then went ahead and did so. Again, I am not hanging him yet, but going back on the campaign promise, taking that money and claiming he is “beholden no nobody” does not look good. Even if that’s not true, he still has no platform to describe himself. So, why are people so fervent about him?

Unfortunately, no one paid much attention to the prime example of electing a man with no previous record, whose lack of knowledge of the political system was supposed to be his biggest asset: Jesse Ventura. He himself admitted that he was so frustrated and ineffective precisely because he lacked the experience to know how to get things done.

I have yet to see Arnold show any sign that he won’t have the same fate.

Tabitha Granshaw

I’m appalled that Schwarzennegger was elected. I agree with Nick that his qualifications seem a bit sparse.

More to the point, though, is that he was accused of sexually harrassing women, he apparently admitted that there was at least some truth in the allegations and he was elected anyway. He is not accused of making the occasional inappropriate remark, but rather placing women in situations where they would reasonably feel physically intimidated.

My main frustration is not actually that he has taken office. I would be very surprised if he manages to get anything done at all. I’m more upset that people voted for him.

Brian Poulsen

Sorry to say this, but this just goes to prove that democracy is a fragile thing. Walt - I mailed you through the contact form. I haven’t heard from ya, so I asume you’re a busy man, or the contact form aint working?

Rachelle Bowden

right now, im really glad i moved out of ca!

Derek Gomez

Rob’s right in pointing out that this was the greatest turnout in a long time. That has got to account for something — at least if it’s your claim that the most people that can vote should. No disenfranchisement here.

Arnold’s agenda has been posted for several weeks now. That’s his position. That’s his plan. (Read it if you haven’t — it’s gonna affect you.)

I wouldn’t think an “R” next to someone’s name would be so anathema to so many people, regardless of his social stances on things like abortion rights and domestic partnerships. But it apparently is.

No need for doom and gloom, folks. Give him a chance — Arnold may surprise you. And disregard the “R” next to his name if it makes you feel better — a quarter of registered Democrats and self-described liberals did the same when they voted for him yesterday.

Nick Runco

i am also very happy with the voter turnout. it’s sad that people have to be mad to want to vote, but perhaps it will create a renewed interest.

speaking for only myself, (although i truly believe that others here agree) i make a conscious effort to not judge a candidate by party. i think it takes the focus off what is really important: 1.) what the candidate says they are going to do, and 2.) how likely it is that they will do it. so an ‘R’ isn’t what concerns me.

i said that he has no platform, and i stand by it. i know about the website and the ideas there. i have read the website you have pointed to, and the vast majority of the text is complaints - what is wrong. and that’s fine. even without going so far as to check numbers, i can agree that the State of California has many of these problems, and they should be addressed. what does concern me, after all the complaining, is what’s left makes no logical sense to me.

of the few specific solutions that are offered, some involve repealing hikes in taxes, or fees, or costs targeted at some group. everyone likes to hear that. however, the rest of the solutions involve fixing problems like education by hiring new teachers, fixing the environment by building facilities for importing natural gas, investing in hydrogen highways, and expanding programs to scrap old vehicles. all of these examples cost money. so, put simply, the plan is to enact some policies that reduces the state’s income, and others that increase the state’s expenditures.

this still leaves one glaring problem. starting with a budget deficit, reducing income, and adding costs will inevidably result in more of a deficit - simple math. the web site addresses this as well: it will reduce waste. it will reduce inefficiency. and that’s as specific as it gets. no details. this is the crux of the argument: the how. i agree investing and improving and innovating and protecting are wonderful. i also agree that less taxes would make people happier. but unless you can say how you would do this, and specifically - these plans mean nothing, they have no chance.

i think i have been very fair not to badger Arnold or his policy here. i think i have been fair to examine specifically the idea, and the feasibility of it. and i don’t see why i should have voted for a candidate who’s policies don’t detail how they are going to be done. that it what i meant by no platform - having no explanations. any candidate can say good things they want to make better, but with no “how” it all means nothing.

included with that lack of explanation, are policies that do more harm than good. “Reforming Section 17200 of the Business and Professional Code” is incuded as a way to prevent lawyers from abusing the law to sue businesses. now, assuming for a second that businesses are unfair targets, and lawyers are abusing the laws that regulate them, how much money does that save the state? let’s assume that this allows business to keep money, and that it filters (i am even avoiding the phrase “trickles-down”) down to employees, and the state sees a increased flow in revenue infused in the system. this is a benefit. however, reforming the law in such a way also prevents any action being taken against companies that have unfairly defrauded the state. one such example is Enron. sticking to facts and not rumors, Enron defrrauded the state out of $9 billion dollars. the state can sue Enron to recover some if not all of this $9 billion. however, reform of Section 17200 of the Business and Professional Code, will prevent that from happening, and the state will lose the $9 billion, erasing any benefit from reforming the law.

running for office isn’t about promising the moon and not saying how you are gonna do it (includng the costs). running for office isn’t about promising benefits that have obvious detrement. i don’t see how Arnold could all of these things, and the things that are achievable have unaddressed, ill side-effects. that’s why i don’t think he made sense to run our state, and why i worry about his actions.

this was my logic - not partisan, not bickering. i heard all the rumors both ways, but i also took the time to understand on a logical level why Arnold, in my opinion, had no viable platform. i had plenty more of the same logical arguments of why i didn’t think his ideas were well thought out, and were problematic.

so, Derek, please don’t assume that anyone who voted against Arnold is merely someone who looks at their party designation and makes up their mind. you are assuming as much about the folks here as you think we are about Arnold. people don’t disagree with the idea of him as Governor because it’s cool or fun. the people here (most of which i know personally) have done their homework and have many valid points and concerns.

Derek Gomez

Point taken, Nick. And thanks for the thoughtful response. Sorry for the implication that some of the readers here are pure partisans (I should have been clearer in my charge — no disrespect intended, especially since I don’t actually know you all).

We all have different philosophies about what would be the best way to go — I personally do believe we can do it (including all the research funding we definitely need) without tax hikes because of waste in the system. This clean up of the waste will have to include cuts in spending and termination of state employees (I’m not claiming it won’t).

I voted for Arnold because I’m a pragmatist. I balance the issues like this: whom I most agree with philosophically (at least from what I can tell) with whom I think is most electable. Didn’t mean to imply you don’t do the same. :)

Derek Gomez

You better report that evidence of conspiracy soon, Sean. ;)

Actually, Florida’s in the black right now — so I personally feel a whole lot better.