Re: Short response to Eli

["Eli Stephens" <elishastephens@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Armand says: Eli wrote that Gray Davis' name is not on the ballot.

No, I wrote that Gray Davis is not on the ballot. There's a difference, and
it's the same reason why a "no" vote on the recall is not a vote "for" Davis
or to "elect" Davis (who, of course, was ALREADY elected last November). A
simple mathematical example demonstrates this. If this were really an
election "between" Davis and Schwarzenegger, as it is widely being portrayed
these days in the press, then a 47% vote for Davis and a 42% vote for
Schwarzenegger would result in Davis being the Governor. But in this
election, a 47% "no" vote on the recall and a 42% vote for Schwarzenegger
results in Schwarzenegger as Governor, demonstrating quite clearly that the
recall is not a vote "for" Davis but something else entirely (and something
completely undemocratic). Indeed, Davis is not only not on the ballot in
this election, but in fact he is THE ONLY CALIFORNIA CITIZEN OVER THE AGE OF
18 WHO IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE BALLOT (probably excluding felons, I would
guess, I'm not familiar with California election law).

Rather than me "voting for Davis," I think it's MUCH clearer that the Left
Party and the Sparts, who call for a "yes" vote on the recall, are
effectively voting to install the sexual-harassing, Nazi-admiring
Schwarzenegger as Governor. Way to go, folks.

LouP (and WWP) think we should simply abstain on the recall, and I certainly
understand that position. But I disagree with LouP's rationale:

> The bottom line is that the Democrats want you to vote 'no' on the recall,
> and the Republicans want you to vote 'yes' on the recall, and they are the
> only two real players in the game, which is a stupid game for dividing and
> confusing the workers.

Well, of course there are a lot of times when the Democrats want something,
and the Republicans want the opposite, but that doesn't mean we abstain. If
the Democrats were to as a bloc suddenly decide to oppose Bush's request for
$87 billion for Iraq, and call for a pullout of troops, we would of course
support them, and vote with them if one of us were in Congress.

Going back to the California/Davis situation, I think the proper way to look
at the first part of this ballot is that it is analagous to a parliamentary
"vote of no confidence" (albeit by the people, not the legislature),
although not as democratic because in a vote of no confidence, if the vote
passes and the government falls, the same person can try to be re-elected as
head of the government.

So would it be appropriate for a few Communists in a legislature to always
abstain on a vote of no confidence, even though in all cases it would be
basically one party urging a "yes" vote, and another party urging a "no"
vote? I don't think so. If the Tories were to try for a vote of no
confidence in Blair based on taking Britain into the war, I would think any
Communist in parliament would vote with the Tories.

Now clearly (at least to me) there is no valid reason to recall Davis. The
reasons given by the Left Party all amount to accusing Davis of being a
bourgeous politician. Most of them (for example, favors prisons over
education) are things which occured and were known last November, when the
voters elected Davis. Others are ridiculous. The Left Party accuses Davis of
raising the car tax, when they undoubtedly know that the reason he did that
is because the Republicans, taking advantage of another undemocratic feature
of California's government (the fact that a budget requires a 2/3 vote),
refused to allow any other taxes which could have balanced the budget, and
Davis took the one "revenue enhancement" option available to him without a
vote. So while the Left Party wants to see Schwarzenegger and the
Republicans in office, they blame Davis and think we should vote to recall
him for the sins of the Republicans. Truly remarkable.

If there is no valid reason to recall Davis (i.e., to vote "yes" on a "vote
of no confidence"), is there a reason to vote "no"? Here I'll only reiterate
briefly what I said in a previous post - the recall is an assault on
democracy, and progressives have a vested interest in preserving democratic
rights, particularly those which might actually allow someone with a
plurality but not a majority vote to not only serve in office, but to remain
in office without being recalled by an election where a majority IS
necessary to remain in power. As noted before, if events had gone
differently, and miraculously Camejo DID win this election, then not only
could he be immediately recalled for no reason whatsoever, but he couldn't
even run again.. Progressives should vote no on this undemocratic recall.

_________________________________________________________________
Get McAfee virus scanning and cleaning of incoming attachments.  Get Hotmail
Extra Storage!   http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.