 | | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
| (...) This strikes me as weird. It's as if one is able to physically hedge their vote. If one votes for "no" recall, how is it that one is able to cast a hypothetical vote? (...) Hmmm... It has intringe, sex, betrayal, sex, gambling, sex, sex, (...) (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
| (...) What does voting "no" have to do with it? What are you trying to say - only those who vote "yes" get to vote for the replacement, or do you really like to see another $40 million spent on a second election to resolve the recall if it is a (...) (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
| (...) I am all in favor of saving the $$$. It makes a little more sense to say "yes, recall him, and replace him with X", than to say "no, do not recall him, but in the event he gets recalled, replace him with X". Maybe it is because it appears that (...) (21 years ago, 8-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
| (...) Alright, let's run this the other way. Another recall happens, only this time it is Arnie. 51% vote yes. 49% vote no. So, in fact, only 51% get to determine who the new governor is. And you can bet that most of that 49% who don't get to vote (...) (21 years ago, 8-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| |
