Talk:2003 California gubernatorial recall election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

I have already voted (absentee) and the article seems to miss the reason that many of my friends will also vote to remove Gray Davis as Governor. It is not about taxes, although our taxes have become a major deterrent to job creation, nor is it a result of the overall state of the California economy. Rather it is about perceived blatant abuse of office to the point where both Rebublicans and Democrats (I am a registered Libertarian) seem to feel sullied. Whether it is because of the money which flowed in from Indian gaming groups, the dumping of previously banned pollutants in San Francisco Bay, or the pandering to Labor bosses by moves such as pay raises for Prison guards or establishing a Union Shop in the California State University system. we believe that our government is for sale to the highest bidder. When it comes to selecting a replacement for Gray Davis you must admit we have a wonderful range to choose from! How about the Trekkie?

I changed the phrase "governor's mansion at stake" to "governor's office at stake", since the literal mansion has stood unoccupied since Jerry Brown declined to move into it in 1975. Also changed "had large control of" to "had enormous influence over" in the intro about Progressivism.

Now that this article exists I think that much of the text in Arnold's and Gray's articles about the recall can be moved here and replaced by summaries. --mav 22:20, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The California SoS has stated a official list of candidates should be available on 13 Aug. Once this list is posted, I intend to Wiki it here...Any comments? --hoshie

There may be several hundred candidates. RickK, who thinks he's going to vote for Gary Coleman. :)
Just put the whole list at List of 2003 California recall candidates, but keep a short list of the top/most notable candidates here (yes, that includes Gary Coleman). --mav 21:24, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I have sought in vain for some kind of simple, coherent explanation of how this will actually be voted. News coverage around here focuses mostly on the rarity of the procedure and amused comments on the number and calibre of candidates.

How exactly will it be voted? There are apparently multiple Republican opponents, a few Democrats, and quite a few unclassified candidates. Is Gov. Davis out if any one candidate draws more votes than he gets? or if his three hundred opponents collectively get more votes? Is there any procedure for a runoff? If so, who becomes governor in the interim? Or does the top vote getter in the October election become governor?

Where is Emperor Norton when you need him? -- IHCOYC 14:59, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I am not an elections expert, but this is my impression from the news coverage:
First, you vote for or against the recall.
Secondly, you vote for one of the replacement candidates (which does not include Gov. Davis). You can vote for a candidate whether or not you vote for the recall. The candidates are running as individuals, not as party members.
If the recall passes (simple majority? of votes for/against the recall), the replacement candidate with the most votes (plurality of votes for replacement candidates) becomes the new governor. If the recall doesn't pass, Davis serves out his term. There are no runoffs. --Brion 15:07, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Thanks. It looks like someone added the information since the last time I looked at the article. The mechanics have not been in any of the local papers that I can recall, and I was curious as to how it worked. -- IHCOYC
According to MSNBC: Davis will lose if he gets 49.9 percent or less on Oct. 7. [1] So, If my thinking is correct, Davis needs 50.1% of voters to vote NO on question #1 to stay in office.
As to question #2, CNN says: if voters agree to recall Democratic Gov. Gray Davis -- a candidate needs only a simple plurality of votes. [2] If my thinking is correct on question #2, a replacement candidate could win with 25% or less, depending on turnout. --hoshie
Technically, if a plurality is all that is needed, and there are more than 100 candidates, it is possible (though unlikely) that the winner may have fewer than 1% of the votes. Of course, having this many candidates increases the likelihood of ties as well. --- IHCOYC
So someone could be elected on 1) fewer votes than it took to elect Davis and 2) fewer votes than it takes to throw him out. .... Yeah, that makes sense. At least there's no need to worry about hanging chads. Koyaanis Qatsi 03:30, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Actually, there is hanging chad potential. Davis tried to get the election delayed on the basis of the fact that some counties will not have updated to more modern systems of voting by the time of the election, but this appeal was denied. So punch cards will be used, and we may get chad recounts after all! -- Someone else 03:42, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)~
Excellent. Maybe it's not too late to get a Bush involved ... Maybe Neil this time; he hasn't been doing much since the S&L scandal.  ;-) Koyaanis Qatsi 03:43, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Saying '49.9% or less' seems to me an odd way to phrase it unless you wanted imply that he could get a minority of the vote and stay on. Merric

<rant>My Gawd! As an American I'm embarrassed by our "democratic" system of government. First Bush won even though more people voted for Gore and now it looks like some nit-wit with possibly less than 10% of the vote will be the next governor of the largest and most powerful state in the Union. This says nothing of our choices, which include; Arnold "The Terminator" Schwarzenegger, Garry "What you talk'n about Willis!" Coleman, Leo "Smash-o-matic" Gallagher, "Billboard babe" Angelyne, and my favorite, Larry "The smut peddler" Flynt. Whose next? These are sad times for the USA.... Altough I'll probably end-up voting for the Running Man just to oust Davis (whom I despise). </rant>--mav

Oh, come now. How, you ask, could a gubernatorial contest get any better? Here's how: Media:Arnold.jpg :) -- Someone else 07:52, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
LOL. He's got the gay vote (he is pro-gay rights too, BTW). --mav 08:13, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
He may lose the robot vote, though. ;) --Brion 08:31, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
In a Fox News Network interview on 27 August 2003, Arnold (stating he supported domestic partnerships but not gay marriages) seems to have made the amusing mis-statement that he believes "homosexual marriage should be between a man and a woman". At least I think that's what I heard... -- Someone else 19:28, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC) (Confirmed, more or less: he actually said "Gay marriage should be between a man and a woman." But it looks like no one's jumping on it. Imagine if Bush had said this during a campaign! -- Someone else 06:59, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC))

Travis Kalanick is not on the list. -- 213.73.161.245 00:12, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I removed the following candidates from the notables list:

Georgy Russell Audie Bock Angelyne Gallagher

The reason they were not removed is that have no recieved coverage in the mainstream news. --hoshie

Gallagher and Angelyne are both very notable, so they were put back in. --mav
CA news is giving plenty of coverage to Coleman, Gallagher, and even Angelyne as candidates. I also say keep them in. --Zippy

inauguration photos[edit]

Security at the event was extreme so I wasn't able to get any photos of Arnold, but these other ones may be useful. However, I'm at work right now and don't have the software needed to crop and resize these images. If somebody else can do this before I get home then that would be great. Otherwise I'll get to it latter tonight. Image:Newsvans at Schwarzenegger inauguration_.JPG, Image:Arnold Schwarzenegger inauguration-crowd.jpg, Image:Arnold Schwarzenegger sexual harassment protestors.JPG. --mav 21:31, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Done; 300 and 750 px wide images of each; check my contribution list for filenames. - Hephaestos 21:57, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I had cropped them [from note on Arnold Schwarzenegger talk]; rv if not correct (I didn't know Hephaestos was croppin' them too); mabey links on the all the img desc pg could be place in? JDR
Thanks! Here are the photos for anybody to place in this article:


Newsvans at Schwarzenegger inauguration
larger image



Sexual harassment protestors
larger image



Crowd watching Schwarzenegger inauguration
larger image


--mav 22:23, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Opps! I forgot I even took this one. Image:California Secretary of State building on October 7, 2003.jpg. --mav

Tom McClintock is referred to as 'state Senator', 'State Senator', and 'state senator'. I'm not sure based on Wikipedia:Typo/capitalization whether it should be 'state senator' or 'state Senator', but it should be consistent. This page is listed in Wikipedia:Typo/capitalization-21. The relevant entry should be removed once the capitalization is fixed. Adjusting


Recall alphabet[edit]

Just for reference: R, W, Q, O, J, M, V, A, H, B, S, G, Z, X, N, T, C, I, E, K, U, P, D, Y, F, L. [3]. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John and Ken[edit]

Their role in this event needs to be touched on, especially the stories they undcovered on Gray "Gumby" Davis and tofu berry shakes...

Merger of Results into main page[edit]

Given the length of the respective pages, I think that the suggested merge is impractical. Since it has been proposed for months without comment, I am boldly removing the tags. Eluchil404 21:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of "Car Tax"[edit]

One major issue that I recall from the recall campaign was the so-called "car tax", which isn't mentioned in this article. California has a vehicle license fee (VLF) which is charged annually to every owner of a California-registered motor vehicle. As of 2003, this fee was by law equal to 2% of the vehicle's market value (according to a statutory depreciation scale), but legislative action since 1998 had gradually reduced the rate to 0.65%, one-third of its original amount. I believe it was described as a "temporary" but indefinite reduction. In 2003, with the budget now very tight, Governor Davis, by executive order, reinstated the 2% rate, effectively tripling the "car tax", as it started to be called by opponents. This was not only an unpopular move but also one of controversial legality, in light of California's constitutional requirement that tax increases be approved by a 2/3 vote of the legislature. There was some question as to whether this applied to ending the "temporary" reduction, or whether the VLF should be considered a tax. In any event, much was made of this move by Governor Davis's opponents in the recall campaign, and it may have significantly contributed to the success of the recall. In fact, upon assuming office, one of Governor Schwarzenegger's first moves was to cancel the VLF increase and order refunds issued to those who had paid the higher rate. 132.239.145.181 (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree, the Car Tax should definitely be in there. That was a huge issue in ads and fueled opposition to Davis. Ryratt (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Davis recall petition.pdf[edit]

Image:Davis recall petition.pdf is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Davis-recall-petition.jpg[edit]

Image:Davis-recall-petition.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar pedantry[edit]

This is really a pretty minor point in the grand scheme of things, but me and Blindman shady seem to disagree on the grammar of the sentence:

"California is one of only 15 states that allow[s] recalls."

To wit, whether the "s" should be there or not. Blindman shady argues that the verb "allows" should agree with "California" (so be singular), whereas I believe the verb should agree with "15 states," and so be plural. Now, "that allow[s] recalls" is a restrictive clause which could in principle modify either "California" or "15 states"; the sentence is grammatically correct either way, although the placement of the clause makes it more natural, to my mind, to read it as modifying "15 states." More significantly, though, the different constructions have different meanings. If the clause modifies "California," the sentence would be equivalent to "There are only 15 states, and California is one that allows recalls." This doesn't seem right to me, because this sentence doesn't explain the relevance of the 15 states. Hence my preference for my version (without the "s"), which is equivalent to "There are only 15 states that allow recalls, and California is one." I'd be interested in people's thoughts on this.VoluntarySlave (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but me and Blindman shady seem

Blindman shady and I*... had to do it XD
Blindman shady 01:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The one without the "s" is grammatically correct. Restrictive clauses always follow the noun they modify in order to be clear. Thus, the way the sentence is currently written, the clause modifies "states" and must take the plural form of the verb for number agreement. In order for the clause to modify "California," the sentence would have to be recast as follows: "California, which allows recalls, is one of only 15 states to do so." --CrazyLegsKC 14:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Write-in candidates with zero votes[edit]

A write-in candidate is a candidate whose name is not on the ballot. On the table of final results, there are five names listed as write-ins with zero votes. If they were not on the ballot and nobody voted for them, then why are they listed? In fact, why do we bother listing 170 people in the table when only four of them even got one percent of the vote and only 12 with one-tenth of one percent? Yes, Wikipedia is to be comprehensive, but there is a link to the complete by-county results if someone wants to know that. Reywas92Talk 22:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that write-in candidates had to register as such. Why someone would bother to register as a write-in candidate and then not bother to ask anyone to vote for him or her, or even vote himself or herself, is a good question, however. Qqqqqq (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
California requires write-in candidates to register, so the write-in candidates who got no votes appear in the official election results (see note 8). VoluntarySlave (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why is there no mention of "Lester Terry Tate Speight"? http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/12/business/the-media-business-advertising-the-reebok-campaign-joins-the-california-campaign.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.22.155 (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election, 2012 - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 21:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Results table[edit]

I have edited the results table at the end of this article to only include candidates who received 1.00% or greater of the popular vote. I did this because, with well over 100 candidates included, the table was bulky and incomprehensible. While we should aspire to be as comprehensive as possible, listing over 100 names who received a minimal portion of the popular vote (many of the candidates did not even win a tenth of a percent, and at least half a dozen received only one vote, presumably their own) seems a bit overkill. As such, I have reduced the table to include only the five candidates who won at least 1.00% of the vote, and condensed the remainder into a single "other" row.

If anyone has a reason to include a greater number of candidates, please let me know. Nathaniel Greene (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an online encyclopedia that should preserve data. Room on a piece of paper is not an issue. Perhaps we can "condense" by having a table with a hide/show option. Victor Victoria (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2003 California gubernatorial recall election. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction in article: can Davis run again?[edit]

In the lede to the article, it says: "Davis was ineligible to run for a third term due to term limits after the recall election." But then in the first section, it says: "As Davis's recall transpired before he had served half of his term as Governor, he remains eligible to serve another term, should he win a future election for the California Governor post." Neither is cited. Which is correct? Alternately, both sentences could be removed, as Davis's political career was destroyed by the recall and the chance of him running again is remote. --Jfruh (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2003 California gubernatorial recall election. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Wikipedia User Page?[edit]

If a gubernatorial candidate is also a Wikipedia editor can their name be linked to their user page? If so, what is the best way to do that? Jasonagastrich (talk) 06:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User pages are not encyclopedic articles, and this would confuse readers, and cross the user pages with the encyclopedic articles. So, from my judgement, I'd give a firm "no". SecretName101 (talk) 07:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A mess[edit]

The two successive "background" sections seem to duplicate each other. The petition and candidates are introduced, then introduced again in a successive section. Possibly (talk) 04:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2003_California_gubernatorial_recall_election&oldid=1196377108"