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.

If Davis resigned (which his Clintonesque ego would never allow), Bustamante does not "become Governor." He only becomes "acting Governor" and only until the "recall election is held." And, if Davis resigned, the recall election "will still be held." The only difference is the yes-no question of removing Davis would not appear on the ballot.

As I understood the laws posted, one only has an "acting Governor" when the sitting Governor is out of state. If he resigns, then by succession, the Lt. Governor becomes (actual) Governor. The recall vote still happens, and if the recall wins, then the candidate (who cannot be the original governor) with the most votes wins. Where things get confusing is whether the former Lt. Governor would go back to being the Lt. Governor, or would be out of office too. That part of the situation does not appear to be clearly addressed in the Constitution or law.

In other words, only the first letter is scrambled; the ballot is alphabetical past the first letter.

There was an explanation from California that this is not so. One of the candidates, whose name began with an "R" and the traditionally lowest second letter, had the same misunderstanding until it was explained by election officials. He will only actually be first in two districts.

I see a lot of interest in the election...though I do note that when people get overwhelmed, they tend to not follow through. I suppose that people who have firmly decided on a candidate will vote, but those who are all excited, but have two or three in mind may well not bother - and still be interested. I myself expect a higher than usual off-year turnout, but rather less than surveys would indicate.

To me, the election system is pretty simple and I understood it from the first time it was explained to me.

A ballot with 200+ names on it is going to be overwhelming. Punch-card ballots would seem to require multiple punches, and computer ballots would seem to require a menu screen once you get within the name section. Ick!

I'll say that the ballot may not be as complicated as you say. There are only two questions, even if there are 192 candidates.

And over how many sheets/screens will the names be distributed? Heck, if they do it wrong with punch-cards, some districts might totally mangle the election in doing the counting - not to mention a greatly increased duration of voters within the voting booth. I wonder how many people will just get discouraged from the wait and leave?

but the ballot is also going to be less confusing

How many of you have checked recently on the general public's ability to alphabetize, much less the ability of minority groups (black or brown). Even today's secretary who is supposed to file a document alphabetically has trouble the first few times, and they were supposedly hired because of their language skills.

Go out on the street and ask the next 10 passers by to find a name in the "S's" of the 195 even in a list simply scrambled like post 26 is here. Better yet, check out the list in #36 and show that to people.

In short, this ballot is going to be impossible for a big majority of the population. Thee and me can deal with it, but we are, what, 0.1% of the population. Let's say that there are 10 times that many people who can alphabetize in their sleep. So the net result is that 99% of the population (voters) are likely to have considerable difficulty just finding the name they want.

It would have been better to have people write in their candidates. No list, just a blank space and a pencil. But then that would have been real discrimination because then you'd have to be able to write.

The above should suddenly make all the illegal alien's and entitlement recipients voting a non-issue.

As I noted before, the advertising would have to be district-specific. In some rural districts there might me a newspaper that served only one District. In suburban newspapers it would be a multi-purpose add: "If you are in District 23 the line to vote is 72. If you are in District 24 the line to vote is 5."

In the City of Los Angeles, the typesetting and proof-reading would be a nightmare. The ad might have to list 20 different Districts. In every case, because I know from experience that the average voter doesn't have a clue what District they are in, the ad would end with this statement in very large type: "You may take this ad into the voting booth with you."

The answer to your question shows why I assert in the article that the only candidates who will matter are those who can get volunteers to hand to each voter as he/she is walking in to vote, an instruction card on the precise line that voter in that district needs to find to vote for that candidate.

Congressman Billybob

but rather less than surveys would indicate

Considering the Gallup poll I mentioned led one to believe the turnout would 70% that is an understatement.

It depends really on whether the media can get away with the "circus" talking point. Their goal is to drive down serious discussion of the issues. Ironically, that most "disenfranchises" their vote, not ours.

And, my second point remains valid. Only those candidates with the money and organization to man the polls exactly as I describe, will get any significant number of votes. The polling results for all unmoneyed, unorganized candidates will evaporate like morning fog in a hot sun, when voters walk into the voting booths.

I have a question: Is it possible that this effect will work more against Bustamante than against Schwarzenegger? I see your basic point: someone votes one way or the other on Part 1, and then looks at the looooong list of candidates, decides it's more trouble than it's worth, and leaves that part blank.

But I assume that someone who votes to retain Davis in office is more likely to favor Bustamante than Schwarzenegger. I also assume that someone who votes to remove Davis is more motivated to find and vote for his replacement candidate. Do you think those two assumptions are true? And if so, are they true for enough people to hurt Bustamante more than Schwarzenegger?

That wasn't what I meant.

I meant that if you have two candidates, one of whose name starts with Ra and the other Rb, they will be in alphabetical order:

Ra
Rb
Rc
etc

However, I've seen more than one person say that the second letter and further are ALSO done off the crazy alphabet, in which case people had better memorize actual ballot positions :-(.

And if that's so, Congressman BillyBob is DEFINITELY right about only the most persistent being able to understand this ballot.

D

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

One look at your list (which I will not reproduce here, LOL!) I think absolutely makes Congressman Billybob's case...it's enough to produce somnolence at the least, and perhaps even a headache or nightmare!! (and...if Arnold was on your list, he sure didn't stand out at first glance...I'd loathe to have to look for through all that for my "candidate of choice"!)

IMHO, the Congressman's right on with this analysis, and it's actually quite brilliant (no shameless flattery intended)...the key will be "people on the ground at the local polls", who have already voted and have determined which line their chosen candidate is listed on for that locale. They will have to fill in the line number at the last minute on pre-printed instruction cards, but this is a great idea, and I hope the "good guys" will pick up on it!!

This of course presumes that even with differing random orders of the candidate listing, all the ballots at a single precinct will be the same "random order"; also that each candidate will have a numbered line on a numbered page (how many pages will this ballot be, BTW?? aargh!) and that most voters will actually read the name before checking (punching?) the designated line...(I can see it now...Bustamente's on line 83, so his minions hand out cards saying *vote for Arnold - line 83*...not that it would work on your average GOP voter, but...)

This of course presumes that even with differing random orders of the candidate listing, all the ballots at a single precinct will be the same "random order"

They should be. Didn't they say that the list is rotated by Assembly district? So there's one list used in all the precincts in Assembly District 1; they rotate the top name to the bottom of the list, and use that list in AD-2, and so on. At least, that was how I understood it.

No there aren't ramifications, because it still appears on the ballot. We aren't recalling Davis, we are recalling the Governor.

Are you sure about this? The petition to recall was very specific. It said

"Pursuant to the California Constitution and California election laws, we the undersigned registered and qualified electors of the State of California, respectfullystate that we seek the recall and removal of Gray Davis holding the office of Governor, in California."

Furthermore, Article II Section 15 doesn't refer to the office but the "officer:"

SEC. 15. (a) An election to determine whether to recall an officer and, if appropriate, to elect a successor shall be called by the Governor and held not less than 60 days nor more than 80 days from the date of certification of sufficient signatures.
...
(c) If the majority vote on the question is to recall, the officer is removed and, if there is a candidate, the candidate who receives a plurality is the successor. The officer may not be a candidate, nor shall there be any candidacy for an office filled pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 16 of Article VI.

Davis is the officer in question.

The question of whether Bustamante is acting or full governor is still open, in my opinion, but if Davis resigns and Bustamante is governor, Section 1 does not become a recall of Bustamante (in my opinion).

-PJ

Sorry, you've done fine work, but it still doesn't apply to our Gov. Cruz "Grave Digger" will not only be holding the position until Oct 7. If Davis resigns say tomorrow, the election is moved up, although the specifics of how its moved up are unclear to me.

Luckily we'll never, ever need to know. This is a freight train. Jump on and have some fun.

I heard on the radio this morning that at this point, if Gray quits (he won't) but then the recall doesn't happen on Oct 7. It happens afterwards, there is no interim Gov, which is why you didn't see anything in the Constitution.

Now they will NEVER do that, with the way AS looks in the few polls we have, because the Dems lose if the election is moved up.

Although, I have a theory of my own that you might like that I've been hashing out on here;

I think that Jerry and Willie Brown are giving subtle compliments of Ahnold. Calling off the dogs. That is not like them. My thinking is that the Demos are hoping for a fiscal moderate with an 'R' to win, that they can use the media to pin all the state's problems on and destroy the Republican party. After all, the Legislature is still hard Left, and this is the same group with Jackie Goldberg who were caught on tape plotting to hold up the budget in order to get programs to publicly run out of money solely to authorize their tax increases. These Marxists will stoop to any level, they certainly don't want a Moderate to succeed.

I've heard strategies like that discussed before, but it assumes a big IF, that is, that the public has NOT been paying attention and would NOT see through this.

I believe that the public has been getting a big education on the ways of politics (state and national) since Florida 2000. With Florida, NJ Torricelli/Lautenberg, Minnisota Wellstone, Hawaii Mink (ok, less known), media bias, 9/11, Iraq reporting vs. imbed reporting, Senate filibusters, etc., the people are paying attention and won't easily fall for a ploy that blames a decade of Democrat rule on 2 years of a Republican governor with the same Democrat legislature and executive branches.

-PJ

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.