Comments on: California Note

By: Robert Schwartz

Robert Schwartz — Sat, 09 Aug 2003 20:32:48 +0000

Walter: “The fact that a convention is heavily intrenched in our society, doesn’t mean it’s no longer legitimate to raise a complaint.” If it aint broke don’t fix it. Jon “And, yes, every voting system (with more than two candidates) may produce anomalies. But I’m pointing to one that is peculiar to this sytem: one candidate needs a majority to win, while all of the others can win with a mere plurality.” RS: “I do not defend it {the california system}, I think it is deeply flawed in many ways. But until the people of California adopt a new constitution, this is the only game in town.”

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Sat, 09 Aug 2003 01:00:13 +0000

Tim, “plurality” means you get more votes than any other candidate, which Clinton did. He won with a plurality but not with a majority. Bush, of course, got fewer votes than Gore (my experience is that Scott M. is to be trusted).

By: JK

JK — Fri, 08 Aug 2003 23:15:32 +0000

Conservative (not claiming an exclusive here) perspective: (i) The rules are the rules (ii) If you have a brilliant improvement to the rules then get it approved by the voters before the election (iii) Anything else is just whining

By: Jon

Jon — Fri, 08 Aug 2003 23:14:28 +0000

I don’t think anything in my post could reasonably be taken as partisan. And, yes, every voting system (with more than two candidates) may produce anomalies. But I’m pointing to one that is peculiar to this sytem: one candidate needs a majority to win, while all of the others can win with a mere plurality.

By: Walter

Walter — Fri, 08 Aug 2003 22:43:26 +0000

The fact that a convention is heavily intrenched in our society, doesn’t mean it’s no longer legitimate to raise a complaint. Nevertheless, as I understood it, Arrow’s Theorem only takes into account lexical ordering. It seems you could devise a voting system using a Continuous Rating Scale that, while there would still be a possibility of an “anomalous result” (in the form of a tie), the chances of one happening are probably pretty damn low.

By: Robert Schwartz

Robert Schwartz — Fri, 08 Aug 2003 22:11:02 +0000

"the most glaring anomaly in the election is that . . . Schwarzenegger becomes governor despite the fact that more people voted for Davis to remain. Of course, I seem to remember another election in which a candidate was declared the winner, despite not receiving a plurality of votes." First. It can be mathematically demonstrated that there are no voting systems that cannot produce what someone, using criteria from outside the system, might call anomalous results. So is this one, and So What? I do not defend it, I think it is deeply flawed in many ways. But until the people of California adopt a new constitution, this is the only game in town. Second, students of American Politics have long known that a President could be elected without carrying the popular vote. It is an explicit feature of the system. Again this is a So What? The Founding Fathers did not measure political institutions by a narrow majoritarian category, and this country has prospered under the government they devised for 225 years. I guess you are still one of the bitter onesdo yourself a favor, get over it, bores do not get invited over for dinner.

By: Tim

Tim — Fri, 08 Aug 2003 21:38:29 +0000

“Of course, I seem to remember another election in which a candidate was declared the winner, despite not receiving a plurality of votes.” Same was true in the 1992 and ‘96 presidential elections. In both cases Mr. Clinton never got more than 49% of the vote, which means that most people who went to the polls voted for someone other than Clinton.

By: BA

BA — Fri, 08 Aug 2003 21:24:17 +0000

I seem to remember that whoever fulfills the conditions consituting victory under the law wins the election. If Gary Coleman rides to the governor’s mantion with 3% of the popular vote, there’ll be dancing in the streets. USA! USA!

By: Scott Martens

Scott Martens — Fri, 08 Aug 2003 21:21:06 +0000

Harry, your memory is faulty. Those absentee ballots decided a number of close state races and referenda, including Prop 37, requiring supermajorities in the legislature to impose new taxes, and Prop 39, repealing those same requirements for educational taxes. The ballots were all counted before the vote was certified in December and are included in the official tallies. I’m afraid you’ve fallen for a ‘Net rumour.

By: Walter

Walter — Fri, 08 Aug 2003 20:41:33 +0000

Well, just because 30% of the voters wanted Davis to stay in office (in the hypothetical), doesn’t mean that Arnold’s winning with 25% of the vote suddenly results in the ‘wrong’ outcome. It can easily be the case that an extra 10+% who didn’t vote for Arnold, would nevertheless prefer Arnold to Davis, and that sounds pretty plausible to me.

By: ivan janssens

ivan janssens — Fri, 08 Aug 2003 19:11:38 +0000

In the article from The New Republic you linked to Josh Benson says this: “If nothing else, Schwarzenegger’s candidacy is dangerous for the simple reason that, for the first time in a while, a GOP candidate has found advisers who know what they’re doing. (…) The team is full of smart veterans who hate the drift of the California GOP toward suicidal social conservatism.” So Schwarzenegger is dangerous because: 1° his advisers know what they are doing 2° they are smart 3° and probably they will lead Schwarzennegger further to the moderate camp (Paul Krugman must support Arnold, because in his NYT-articles he regrets the fact that there are no moderate Republicans anymore. Cheer up Paul, they are back!) and away from the conservative right. Huh? What is dangerous about that, except dangerous for the Democrats? I think Calefornians would be right to vote for the Terminator, what is known about his program sounds really good!

By: Harry

Harry — Fri, 08 Aug 2003 14:49:56 +0000

I have this memory about the other election which is that, in fact, it is highly likely that the ultimate winner did, in fact, win a plurality of votes. Its just that they weren’t coutned. My emmory is that the California absentee ballots were not counted, and that it is highly likely that the preponderance of this large number of votes went to the victorious candidate: likely enough to overcome his opponent’s 500k advantage in the rest of the country. Am I wrong about this? I was living in England at the time, where a sensible psephologist explained all this on Channel 4 News, but no Americans I’ve met since returning, even the fervent Bush supporters who are the plurality of my family-by-marriage seemed aware of it.