Nuts and Bolts in California

No, this isn't a cheap shot based on breakfast cereal, about folks in California being ''fruits and nuts.'' Instead, it is a discussion of the mechanics of the recall election in that state. The media hasn't picked up this story yet, but process of any election has an impact on its results. This is especially true for this election there.

Policy wonks in Ph.D. programs, which I was until a few years ago, study such things as the effect of ballot placement on the number of votes received. It has been solidly established that if names are listed in alphabetical order on the ballot -- all other things being equal -- Anthony A. Aardvark will receive more votes than Ziggy Z. Zymurgy in any election for any office anywhere in the United States. Because of that fact, most jurisdictions – including California – have changed to random assignment of the positions of names on the ballot. That fact will have a profound effect on this particular election in California.

For purposes of this discussion, I'm assuming that Governor Davis will be recalled. His approval ratings are already the lowest ever measured in the history of political polling in California. All candidates to replace him, excepting Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamante, will be campaigning first to dump Davis and then to elect them instead. I expect Davis’ approval ratings to descend further, and the vote to remove him from office to be a landslide.

So we turn to the second question on the ballot. Which of the 195 candidates to replace Davis will receive a plurality of votes and become the new Governor? Keep in mind this is a winner-take-all election, so whoever gets the most votes, regardless of how low his/her percentage is of the total votes cast, will get the job.

Some commentators have looked at the number of candidates running and have speculated that the winner may get as little as 5 percent of the total vote. This is absolute nonsense. The mechanics of this election dictate a different result. Here's why:

The longer a ballot is, the more that voters become frustrated. All elections everywhere show the same pattern. The contest at the top of the ticket attracts the largest number of votes cast. The contest or issue at the bottom of the ballot receives the least votes. And the California ballot in this election will be one of the worst ''laundry-list ballots'' in the history of American elections. So not only will the turnout for the recall of Davis be low, the total vote for all replacement candidates will be even lower.

What is mechanically necessary for any voter to cast a vote for any particular candidate to replace Davis? Assume you walk into the booth intending to vote for Arianna Huffington. I don't know why anyone (other than some members of her family and her paid employees) would want to do that, but go with the assumption for the moment. Since the names on the ballot are not alphabetical, you cannot use it like a dictionary, go to the H’s, and cast your vote. You will have to search the entire list to find her name.

Most voters won't go to that trouble. The truth is that all but three of the candidates running are guaranteed also-rans for this precise reason. The votes for only three candidates will decide the outcome of this election: in alphabetical order they are Cruz Bustamante, Bill Simon, and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Either Bustamante or Schwarzenegger will win. Simon’s relevance is only whether he will draw enough votes away from Schwarzenegger so Bustamante wins. This assertion has almost nothing to do with what anyone says or does on the campaign trail. Instead, it has everything to do with the mechanics of this election.

The day before the election, all candidates with any budget at all will run advertisements emphasizing their ballot positions – ''Vote for John Smith on line 72.'' But most voters will not read those advertisements, or if they do, will not remember that number when they step into the voting booth. I’ll get to my proof of that in a moment. Suffice to say, only the candidates who can ''cover the polls'' will receive any significant number of votes.

Here's what covering the polls entails: Since California, like all other jurisdictions, forbids electioneering within a certain distance from the door to the polling place, every real candidate (rather than the hopeless ones) must have at least two volunteers at every one of California's tens of thousands of polling places. Two are needed because voters can approach the door from at least two directions. Ideally, five volunteers are needed per polling place because voters sometimes approach in groups and they need to reach them all. There needs to be one backup to cover for the others when they take breaks.

What do these volunteers need to do? They will pass out cards printed in large black letters (for the vision impaired) that state a simple message: ''VOTE FOR JOHN SMITH ON LINE 72.'' The most likely voters for any candidate are those who step into the booth holding that card, with its easy-to-follow instruction.

It will take millions of dollars to establish and man the offices to run that volunteer effort, to have cell phones and backup plans when some volunteers are not on-site before the polls open in the morning, and for transportation and printing costs to get those all-important instruction cards into the hands of potential voters. Only three candidates will have the money, staff, and appeal to volunteers to accomplish this task.

Lt. Governor Bustamante will be able to do this, because he will have the backing of Governor Davis’ machine and money. Of course, his voter card will have two lines, with the first saying, ''VOTE YES FOR DAVIS.''

Arnold Schwarzenegger will be able to do this because he has the money, he'll have the volunteers, and he has the business acumen to build such an organization from the ground up in only two months.

Bill Simon will attempt to do this, pulling together the remnants of his grassroots effort from his losing but close campaign for Governor less than a year ago. But he'll have less money and some of his volunteers will leak away. How many polling places Simon is unable to cover due to lack of money, lack of volunteers, or both, will be key to this election.

And now, the proof of these assertions. Punch card ballots aren't easy to use. It's a little known fact that many more punch card ballots were invalidated in the City of Chicago than in the entire state of Florida in the 2000 presidential election. The situation in Chicago was little reported, because those ''lost'' votes had no theoretical effect on the outcome of the Illinois vote for president.

Combine the normal rate of punch card failures in some California counties with the laundry list ballot (which will effect all polling places in California). Only those voter instruction cards, handed personally to each voter entering every polling place, will pull any substantial vote for any candidate.

Though there have been many jokes about the voters in Palm Beach County, Florida in 2000, I am more forgiving, due to an experience I had as an election judge in Baltimore City three decades ago. John Pica, Jr., a local politician, had been knocked out of the legislature in the primary, but he decided to run a write-in campaign in the general election to get his job back.

He had the money plus enough volunteers to cover the polls. His volunteers gave each voter a card with a pencil attached that spelled out the four steps to cast a write-in vote. As election judges, we were required to stay neutral on the Pica candidacy. However, we were instructed before the polls opened on the process of assisting voters if they sought help. It was that two judges, one Republican and one Democrat, would go in the booth with any voter seeking help. (This is the standard way that judges help physically or visually handicapped voters.) We expected a flood of Pica voters to ask for help.

Only two voters sought help. Instead, voters wrote Pica's name on the face of the machine, or they pulled the final lever and asked us afterwards how to vote for Pica, or they got confused and gave up on that vote. Pica got far less votes from my precinct than people who wanted to vote for him, to my observation.

The point is that all voters – not just in Baltimore City, not just in Palm Beach County – tend to have trouble following instructions. The more difficult the process is, the greater the shrinkage between intention to vote for Smith and valid votes cast for Smith. This general truth about voters will apply big time in the election to choose the replacement for former Governor Gray Davis in California. From that it follows that the results of this election will be at most a three-way race, and 192 of the candidates will simply be irrelevant to the ultimate result.

By what I write I mean no disrespect to the average voter. People routinely handle tasks far more challenging than casting a vote – driving a semi, running a computer, raising children. But all those are daily activities that people are accustomed to. The process of voting comes up only every two or four years. And few in California have ever experienced an election the likes of the recall on October 7.

In this particular election, the mechanical process of casting votes on October 7 itself will have as much (or more) impact on the results as all the campaigning and press coverage that precedes that day. The bellwether for that outcome will be dollars spent, offices opened and manned, and volunteers signed up by Schwarzenegger, Bustamante and Simon, to list the candidates in probable order of finish.

You're missing the point. Regardless of turnout, voters are going to have trouble voting in an election of 195 candidates. THAT is the central point. And I am NOT a casual observer of politics -- I've worked for a dozen presidential candidates, among others.

I'll make you these two wagers based on the mechanical difficulty of voting for one of 195 candidates. In both cases, I owe you $25 if I'm wrong. You owe me $1 if I'm right. 1. The total vote on the Davis recall question will exceed the total vote for all candidates running to replace him. 2. The average of the polls for how people will vote, as of the day before the election, will not match the votes cast. Specifically, the totals for Schwarzenegger, Bustamante and Simon together will be higher than poll results predict, and the totals for all other candidates together will be lower than predicted.

Billybob

Re #16.

>> "If Davis resigned ... Bustamante does not "become Governor." He only becomes "acting Governor". <<

There seems to be some well informed argument about this. The law does not use the term "acting Governor" just Governor.

I understand and agree that the recall election will still be held if Davis resigns, BUT IF the DemonRats get enough votes and DEFEAT the recall, and Davis has resigned isn't Cruz the Gov. Are you SURE that the yes-no question "would not appear on the ballot"? I don't see any law that states that.

I don't think that any of the court cases have raised the question of whether the yes-no question disappears from the ballot if Davis resigns. This is now the crucial issue.

While I enjoy a good wager, you are getting off topic. I don't disagree with whatever central point you are making, that not everyone will vote on the 2nd question. I think most will, but you may have some true believers against the recall who will obstain. I don't care, since otherwise those are Bustamante votes, but I agree that will happen.

My point (still) is that the turnout will not be "low" it will not even been "moderate" it will be historic highs.

I've got another wager, that it will be higher than the 32% you mentioned, and I'll gladly give you the 25-1 odds that it exceeds that.

Well yes, the resignation concept has been discussed over and over, but there is one technical point that I don't think has been thoroughly looked at.

It is generally agreed that a Davis resignation does not stop the recall.

However, there is not so much agreement on exactly what happens with the recall election if he does resign first. This gets into a somewhat grey area of the law.

Assume he resigns, and the recall goes forward, there are good arguments on the following points:

1. Does Cruz become "acting" gov, or "full" gov in the interim? There are major ramifications in this.

2. Does Question 1 still appear on the ballot, or does it disappear from the ballot. This also has major ramifications.

You assume that Cruz has gone against the power structure of the Demo party. This may be true, or they may be playing a deep game. No one knows what pressure can be brought on Cruz when it is needed. Remember the games played in New Jersey.

1. Does Cruz become "acting" gov, or "full" gov in the interim? There are major ramifications in this.

No there aren't ramifications, because it still appears on the ballot. We aren't recalling Davis, we are recalling the Governor. Since it has already been certified, the Constitution is quite clear. That is why you aren't hearing about this.

I know you've been burned by the Demo Party many times, but there is a difference between being Suspicious, and making them The All Powerful Boogie Man.

Its on the ballot, Gray's not stepping anywhere but out on Oct 7. The only thing to be frightened about it Cruz somehow coming through, which currently looks unlikely in the polls.

People's Rep and I have had our differences, but I have to swing my support solidly behind him in terms of recall turnout. There is an immense amount of interest in this election, and - more to the point - it has compelling candidates people are enthusiastic about going out and supporting. Whether you're for McClintock or Schwarzenegger or even Ariana Huffington, you know that there is at least one person on the ballot who expresses your views in a way that could make you proud.

It's possible that I'm too much of a geek about this, but the ballot is also going to be less confusing than Congressman BillyBob thinks.

The order is going to look like this: (I'm using a random order of letters here, so don't hold me to that being correct):

Edwards
Evans
Santos
Schwarzenegger
Smith
Stevens
McAfee
McClintock
Munoz
(etc)

In other words, only the first letter is scrambled; the ballot is alphabetical past the first letter. So all you need to do is find your favourite letter and slip down the alphabet to your candidate of choice.

If that's reasonably well explained, I don't think it will be all that difficult.

Schwarzennegger does have a huge advantage in the length of his name, which will stand out like a sore thumb no matter what the order is. (I forget who pointed this out, but it's a perfectly valid observation).

D

Well my whole point is just that I don't want people Out Of State to get the impression that we are getting jaded, or that this is like most elections. Its unlike anything I've ever seen, the mood here is rather intense. (The Demo's talking point of "circus" might give people the impression we are getting disconnected, but as my local friends keep telling me when I was yelling at the TV; I like circuses, they are fun.)

The turn out will be grand, a sight to behold.

So will the use of a vote as a referendum against liberal tax-and-spend politics. May it spread across the land like a wild fire.

My article would have been the same, even if I'd said nothing about total turnout. Laundry-list and difficult ballots have been researched to a fare-thee-well by people with way too much time on their hands (like my coilleagues in the Ph.D. program at American University).

The bottom line is absolutely established from long, hard, clear examples. The more complicated the ballot is, the less voters will be able to cast their votes successfully in accord with their intentions going into the voting booth. In fact, that's a general truth of human nature -- the harder it is to do anything, the fewer people will succeed in doing it.

The only reason we are not going to see months of litigation by lawyers in $1,000 suits with an ax to grind, after this election, on behalf of allegedly "disenfranchised" voters, is this: Gray Davis will be overwhelmingly recalled. Arnold Schwarzenegger will be overwhelmingly elected to replace him. The quarreled "votes" will be insufficient to change the results even if assumed all to go in the preferred direction.

I hope there is a higher turnout, rather than a lower one. The higher the turnout, the less likely it is that the California "public service" unions can swing the election in favor of Davis remaining, or worst case, Bustamante taking his place. (But the unions will have a tough time doing either, because they are going to suffer massive defections among the rank and file -- there will be "Ah-nold Democrats" just as there were "Reagan Democrats," though for slightly different reasons.)

I emphasize -- again -- that I am dealing with what IS based on facts on the ground, rather than what OUGHT TO BE based on pure theory. I have no objection to theoretical analysis and spend a lot of time on it. But that has nearly nothing to do with this unique election in California.

Billybob

That's why I said I might be too much of a nerd to really understand this. To me, the election system is pretty simple and I understood it from the first time it was explained to me. But I notice that many, many people have an exceptionally difficult time figuring it out.

Many people still don't understand clearly that there are two ballots and don't realize that Gray Davis can't be on the second, and the implications this has.

So you are probably right that the non-alphabetical ballot will be too confusing for many, and the conclusions you have taken from it are accurate, even in my view.

If what you say is true, we can prove it by counting the number of people who voted for or against the recall and compare it to the number who voted on the replacement candidate.

D

With all due respect, Sir, both to the time you have spent researching the arcana of the mechanics of the nuts and bolts of the process of the upcoming California gubernatorial recall election as well as similar and dissimilar elections in other jurisdictions and to the extreme frustration likely to be experienced by all those average, and less than, and more than, Janes and Joes (facing the smorgasbord of 195 (or whatever) candidates) not having cards "with easy to-follow instruction(s) ...printed in large black letters (for the vision impaired) that state a simple message: ''VOTE FOR JOHN SMITH ON LINE 72.'', just how difficult do you think it's going to be for even the most somnolent of those who manage to find their way to a polling place to find as well the name "Arnold Schwartzenneger", even if the ballot were to be as poorly formatted as this sentence?

Based on experiences in many jurisdictions, not just Florida in 2000, I think the level of "spoiled ballots" on the second question in California (who will replace Davis?) will be higher than Florida and on a par with Chicago as a percentage. In short, I think the physical nature of the cattle-call replacement vote will produce an all-time high in the percentage of people who come in to vote, do vote on the Davis recall, but then fail to cast a valid ballot on the second question.

This is a projection, based on experience. Votes on the two parts of the California ballot will be separately tabulated. For instance, if a voter votes on the Davis question but fails to vote for a replacement -- which is the legal effect of a partially spoiled ballot -- the first vote will nonetheless count.

The press will use exit polls to project the winner. Since I don't think the replacement vote will be close, the winner will be known right after the polls close. But the result will probably not be official until the final results are announced by the Secretary of States office, probably three days after the election. At that point the total voters on the two parts of the ballot will be known, and my projection will be proven or disproven.

(Also, as noted above, the meaningless cases about "disenfranchisement" will follow quickly, and be shortly dismissed.)

Billybob

Schwarzennegger does have a huge advantage in the length of his name, which will stand out like a sore thumb no matter what the order is. (I forget who pointed this out, but it's a perfectly valid observation).

Actually, Arnold's Name isn't really that long compared with the others on the list:

DAVID LAUGHING HORSE ROBINSON
NED ROSCOE
DANIEL J. RAMIREZ
CHRISTOPHER RANKEN
JEFF RAINFORTH
KURT E. RIGHTMYER
DANIEL W. RICHARDS
KEVIN RICHTER
REVA RENEE RENZ
SHARON RUSHFORD
GEORGY RUSSELL
MICHAEL J. WOZNIAK
DANIEL T. WATTS
NATHAN WHITECLOUD WALTON
MAURICE WALKER
CHUCK WALKER
LINGEL H. WINTERS
C.T. WEBER
JIM WEIR
BRYAN QUINN
MICHAEL JACKSON
JOHN "JACK" MORTENSEN
DARRYL L. MOBLEY
JEFFREY L. MOCK
BRUCE MARGOLIN
GINO MARTORANA
PAUL MARIANO
ROBERT C. MANNHEIM
FRANK A. MACALUSO,_JR.
PAUL "CHIP" MAILANDER
DENNIS DUGGAN MCMAHON
MIKE MCNEILLY
MIKE P. MCCARTHY
BOB MCCLAIN
TOM MCCLINTOCK
JONATHAN MILLER
CARL A. MEHR
SCOTT A. MEDNICK
DORENE MUSILLI
VAN VO
PAUL W. VANN
JAMES M. VANDEVENTER,_JR.
BILL VAUGHN
MARC VALDEZ
MOHAMMAD ARIF
ANGELYNE
DOUGLAS ANDERSON
BROOKE ADAMS
IRIS ADAM
ALEX-ST._JAMES
JIM HOFFMANN
KEN HAMIDI
SARA ANN HANLON
IVAN A. HALL
JOHN J. "JACK" HICKEY
RALPH A. HERNANDEZ
C. STEPHEN HENDERSON
ARIANNA HUFFINGTON
ART BROWN
JOEL BRITTON
AUDIE BOCK
VIK S. BAJWA
BADI BADIOZAMANI
VIP BHOLA
JOHN W. BEARD
ED BEYER
JOHN CHRISTOPHER BURTON
CRUZ M. BUSTAMANTE
CHERYL BLY-CHESTER
B.E. SMITH
DAVID RONALD SAMS
JAMIE ROSEMARY SAFFORD
LAWRENCE STEVEN STRAUSS
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER
GEORGE B. SCHWARTZMAN
MIKE SCHMIER
DARRIN H. SCHEIDLE
BILL SIMON
RICHARD J. SIMMONS
CHRISTOPHER SPROUL
RANDALL D. SPRAGUE
TIM SYLVESTER
JACK LOYD GRISHAM
JAMES H. GREEN
GARRETT GRUENER
GEROLD LEE GORMAN
RICHARD ANDREW GOSSE
LEO GALLAGHER
JOE GUZZARDI
JON W. ZELLHOEFER
PAUL NAVE
ROBERT C. NEWMAN_II
BRIAN TRACY
A. LAVAR TAYLOR
WILLIAM TSANGARES
PATRICIA G. TILLEY
DIANE BEALL TEMPLIN
MARY "MARY CAREY" COOK
GARY COLEMAN
TODD CARSON
PETER MIGUEL CAMEJO
WILLIAM "BILL" S. CHAMBERS
MICHAEL CHELI
ROBERT CULLENBINE
D. (LOGAN DARROW) CLEMENTS
S. ISSA
BOB LYNN EDWARDS
ERIC KOREVAAR
STEPHEN L. KNAPP
KELLY P. KIMBALL
D.E. KESSINGER
EDWARD "ED" KENNEDY
TREK THUNDER KELLY
JERRY KUNZMAN
PETER V. UEBERROTH
BILL PRADY
DARIN PRICE
GREGORY J. PAWLIK
LEONARD PADILLA
RONALD JASON PALMIERI
CHARLES "CHUCK" PINEDA,_JR.
HEATHER PETERS
ROBERT "BUTCH" DOLE
SCOTT DAVIS
RONALD J. FRIEDMAN
GENE FORTE
DIANA FOSS
LORRAINE (ABNER ZURD) FONTANES
WARREN FARRELL
DAN FEINSTEIN
LARRY FLYNT
CALVIN Y. LOUIE_CPA
DICK LANE
TODD RICHARD LEWIS
GARY LEONARD

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.