There has been much commentary in the blogosphere on the California recall election, but Crooked Timber has been surprisingly immune. Let me change that by making one brief note. Slate has an Explainer on the election and a link to a useful article in the San Francisco Chronicle. Maybe this is perfectly obvious to everyone, but to me, the most glaring anomaly in the election is that a scenario like this seems entirely plausible: Davis loses the recall election, 70%-30%. Arnold Schwarzenegger receives more votes than any of the other 350+ candidates with, say, 25% of the vote – see this New Republic article. 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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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!
“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.
“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.
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.
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.
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
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).
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.”
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review