Ray Haynes Endorses the Recall

Email message from CA Assembly District 66 | September 29, 2003 | Ray Haynes

[jmc813]

The thread is peaceful, because "some people" wouldn't come and touch it with a ten-foot pole.

It's also peaceful because the poster chose not to lie about the thread title like "some people".

[RedBloodedAmerican]

McC has a hidden, personal agenda in all this. What is it? It does not involve the voters of California. I wonder what it is.

[Robert_Paulson2]

wow.

[jmc813]

McC has a hidden, personal agenda in all this. What is it? It does not involve the voters of California. I wonder what it is.

Time to replace the tin foil.

[Robert_Paulson2]

malignant narcism...
actually quite dangerous if accompanied by schitzoid or bi polar behaviors...

[Robert_Paulson2]

starting a new political party... and running for president... after all, he feels entitled...

[RedBloodedAmerican]

I'll change my foil win Tom changes his metal plate.

[Sabertooth]

On the social issues on which we can have an effect, Schwarzenegger is with us.

Searched the article for the following words...

Illegal, Illegals, Alien, aliens, migrant, immigrant, immigration, drivers, license, and licenses.

Nothing.

[jmc813]

Illegal, Illegals, Alien, aliens, migrant, immigrant, immigration, drivers, license, and licenses.

You forgot "guns".

[Jeff Gordon]

I am proud to have as MY rep!

And well you should be. He is brilliant. He is rational. He is a team player. Congratualtions to you and your district's fine choice. I sure as hell wish we had a few more like him around this state.

[Jeff Gordon]

Having studied a little Psychology in college (enough to figure this one out), I'd say the guy has some MAJOR issues.

I read that sentence several times. Each time my mind saw "Psychology" as "Pathology." I wonder what that says about me?

[A CA Guy]

Read it, thanks.

[Slip18]

Ping to myself for reading again.

Bump to others.

[b9]

Thank you for this ping.

The concept of "principle" over "personality"
has been completely adulterated until now.
Knowing the history sure puts it all in perspective.

I hope we hear a lot more from Ray Haynes.

[MeekOneGOP]

Thanks for the post and ping, folks !
Great read, fyi ...

Ray Haynes Endorses the Recall

Excerpt:

Which brings me to Schwarzenegger. I did not need to get involved in this race, and the easiest, and most political, thing for me to do would be to endorse Tom. Everyone would have expected it, and I would get no heat for the decision. But I believe the essence of leadership is letting your friends know when they are doing something wrong. It is easy to tell folks who have never supported you that they are wrong, there is no political cost to that. Looking your supporters that they are wrong is hard, because no one likes to hear that. There is a significant political cost that attaches to that. If I had said or done nothing, or endorsed Tom, I could have skated through this entire event without cost to me. But, if Cruz wins because Tom split the vote, the cost to the conservative movement in California will be immeasurable. We started the recall, we need to finish it with a victory. If we lose now, and there is a better than average chance we will if things stay the same, we will rightly bear the criticism that we handed this state over to the Democrats for the next 7 years. Our shortsightedness could cost us the entire war in this state. That is a risk I will not take. I have worked too hard, fought too much for the things we believe in to sacrifice them for my political career, for someone else's ego, or for the shortsightedness of those who are my allies. If I believe we are doing wrong, I am going to do what is right first, and let the politics fall as they may. If that means I must bear the criticism of my friends, then so be it. I know if Cruz wins, conservatism is California will be discredited for a long time.

Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy.

[alwaysconservative]

Thanks for the ping and thanks for posting this thoughtful article! LC, you are lucky to have Haynes representing you.

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

What have we been repeating over and over?........

Tom believed he was entitled to the Governor's office. This is not a battle over personality; it is a battle over principle. I believe the principles we believe in lost when Darrell pulled out, and they lost because Tom would not even consider anything other than his personal campaign for Governor.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[Graewoulf]

This California election is a wake-up call for those who want to revise a system that is based on plurality and not majority voting. In other words, this election is NOT based on Democracy!

California did not get into the current mess that it is in due to democrats alone. The plurality election system also was a negative factor, and will continue to be a negative factor until it is rejected. The election will run its course, but NOW is the time to begin planning a revision, when the arguments and reasoning are in an active state. Even if one's favorite candidate wins next week, the plurality election system will still be there as a negative factor in the next election.

It is interesting to think about the great harm to the election process by allowing plurality election laws to replace democracy, that is, majority election laws.

Point A: It will take a majority vote ( 50 percent of those voting plus one vote ) to recall CEO Gray-Davis, but only a plurality vote to choose a new CEO.

Point B: The true sillyness of this California election can be seen if all candidates, except for one, received exactly the same number of votes. The "except for one candidate" would receive one more vote than any of the other candiidates. Thus, the "winner" of the election for a new CEO for the seventh largest economy in the World would have won with a vote total of less than one percent. The "winner" would thus have been voted against by over 99 percent of those voting. The "winner" would have been chosen by the present plurality election laws.

Point C: It is useful to understand the predominate reasoning at this time so that a revision of the present system can improve the election procedure in the future. Example # 1.) "But, if Cruz wins because Tom split the vote, the cost to the conservative movement in California will be immeasurable." This quote is from the text of this post by Roy Haynes. What it demonstrates is an either-or, take-it-or-leave-it reasoning. It also demonstrates that any candidate who does not drop out is considered to be guilty of splitting the vote. If the right of free speech is so precious, and if the right to vote is also so precious, then what could be more important than to have an election process where each voter could express him or herself by voting for a candidate of their choice? The plurality voting system takes away candidates, by virtue of "doing what is best for the Party" BEFORE the voters have a chance to vote!

Example # 2.) "It's essentialy (sic) for everyone to recognize this is NOT a primary. It's a General and we need to support the strongest candidate in order to end the Bustamante-Davis regime." This is a quote from the reply by jagrmeister. This is an excellent window into the basic differences between democrats and Republicans. The democrats are an idea-bankrupt Party. They bow and scrape to whoever has the best chance of being elected, according to opinion polls taken by themselves, and their lackies: "The Media." Thus, the democrats unite behind one candidate long before the General Election. The Republican Party is a Party bursting with ideas, and candidates to state them. With the current plurality system, the Republicans are discouraged from seeking office if they are not the front-runner in the opinion polls. Thus, the opinion polls, and party loyalty exclude candidates and their ideas before the voter has been given the opportunity to vote.

Discussion: The most important thing is what is best IN THE LONG RUN for the State of California. I have made a case for revoking the current plurality election laws, and passing legislation requiring any public official to be elected by a majority of those voting in that election, or as many runoffs as it takes to achieve a majority vote by one candidate.

Whoever is the "winner" in the election next week will be the focus of the second most important thing: who will be the CEO of the seventh largest economy in the World? Between now and the end of the election our focus should be on the second most important thing, but at the same time be mindful that planning needs to begin now on the most important thing: returning Democracy to the voters of California.