PDA

View Full Version : In CA, 287,590 vote for criminal who had dropped out of race




Brian4Liberty
06-04-2014, 11:29 AM
"Sheer ignorance". No better way to describe democracy in America. The voters are so ignorant that they vote for criminals who have dropped out of the race. A huge percentage of voters vote for candidates because they have heard the candidate's name or just like the name. The voters who think they are informed vote for candidates because they saw a commercial on TV.

There is no hope.


An Absurd Number Of People Voted For State Senator Under Federal Investigation (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/04/leland-yee-vote_n_5442571.html)




Despite his arrest in March for several public corruption charges, including an alleged conspiracy to traffic firearms, suspended state Sen. Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) placed third in the primary race for California secretary of state.

Yee garnered 287,590 votes, trailing behind Alex Padilla (D) with 884,857 and Pete Peterson (R) with 871,388, The Associated Press reported Wednesday morning.

While Yee withdrew his election bid shortly after his arrest, he did so after the deadline for removing candidate statements from the voter guide had passed, the Los Angeles Times reported, noting Yee’s stated promises to “guarantee fair elections, expose special interests, and prevent corruption.”

San Jose State University political scientist Larry Gerston told the Times that votes for Yee could be largely attributed to sheer ignorance.

ZENemy
06-04-2014, 12:16 PM
Well; if voting made a difference it would be illegal.

aGameOfThrones
06-04-2014, 12:26 PM
and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

snorlax
06-04-2014, 02:01 PM
Well, you were encouraging people in another thread to vote for Tim Donnelly, also a criminal running in California (albeit not one who had dropped out of the race), so I wouldn't be throwing stones.

Edit: Neg repping without responding is extremely mature, but here's your evidence; he's currently on probation (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2012/03/california-lawmaker-gets-fine-probation-after-pleading-no-contest-to-gun-charges.html) for trying to bring a loaded firearm in his carry-on luggage onto a plane, and has previously been convicted of burglary, a felony (http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/tim-donnelly-convicted-felon/). He also lied twice after the gun thing, first claiming he had no prior convictions, them claiming that the burglary conviction was as a juvenile (it wasn't).

alucard13mm
06-04-2014, 02:54 PM
I bet you, most if not all the votee are by asians.

Zippyjuan
06-04-2014, 03:49 PM
Why? Because of his name? Or is it a comment on their intelligence?

Occam's Banana
06-04-2014, 03:56 PM
"Sheer ignorance". No better way to describe democracy in America. The voters are so ignorant that they vote for criminals who have dropped out of the race.


Yee garnered 287,590 votes, trailing behind Alex Padilla (D) with 884,857 and Pete Peterson (R) with 871,388,

How is voting for the criminal who has dropped out of a race any more "ignorant" than voting for the criminals who haven't? Seriously. Does anyone actually believe that the people who voted for Padilla or Peterson are any less "ignorant" (or any more "well-informed") than the people who voted for Yee?

Democracy sucks - it is, as they say, "two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch." And it really doesn't seem to matter very much to the sheep's ultimate fate whether the wolves are "ignorant & stupid" or "intelligent & well-informed" ...

Henry Rogue
06-04-2014, 04:20 PM
How is voting for the criminal who has dropped out of a race any more "ignorant" than voting for the criminals who haven't? Seriously. Does anyone actually believe that the people who voted for Padilla or Peterson are any less "ignorant" (or any more "well-informed") than the people who voted for Yee?

Democracy sucks - it is, as they say, "two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch." And it really doesn't seem to matter very much to the sheep's ultimate fate whether the wolves are "ignorant & stupid" or "intelligent & well-informed" ...
Exactly. Systemic disfunction if one hopes for Peace, Liberty and Prosperity. Systemic perfection if one wants to gain control of other and profit by theft. Good thing I love an underdog.

Brian4Liberty
06-04-2014, 04:50 PM
A huge percentage of voters vote for candidates because they have heard the candidate's name or just like the name. The voters who think they are informed vote for candidates because they saw a commercial on TV.



How is voting for the criminal who has dropped out of a race any more "ignorant" than voting for the criminals who haven't? Seriously. Does anyone actually believe that the people who voted for Padilla or Peterson are any less "ignorant" (or any more "well-informed") than the people who voted for Yee?

Democracy sucks - it is, as they say, "two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch." And it really doesn't seem to matter very much to the sheep's ultimate fate whether the wolves are "ignorant & stupid" or "intelligent & well-informed" ...

Are you saying that all politicians are criminals? That and the merits of democratic process in a Republic are bigger picture issues.

As far as the the Padilla and Peterson voters, see my OP. They aren't necessarily any more well informed. They may just like the names. But we can say that the people who voted for Yee missed the fact that he wasn't in the race anymore. There will be a portion of the Peterson and Padilla voters who were well-informed. The same can't be said about any of the Yee voters.

The more, and also the well informed voters who probably would have voted for Yee (D) most likely switched to Padilla (D).

Brian4Liberty
06-04-2014, 05:08 PM
Well, you were encouraging people in another thread to vote for Tim Donnelly, also a criminal running in California (albeit not one who had dropped out of the race), so I wouldn't be throwing stones.

Edit: Neg repping without responding is extremely mature, but here's your evidence; he's currently on probation (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2012/03/california-lawmaker-gets-fine-probation-after-pleading-no-contest-to-gun-charges.html) for trying to bring a loaded firearm in his carry-on luggage onto a plane, and has previously been convicted of burglary, a felony (http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/tim-donnelly-convicted-felon/). He also lied twice after the gun thing, first claiming he had no prior convictions, them claiming that the burglary conviction was as a juvenile (it wasn't).

Didn't have time for a full response...here you go:

- Your response was an "attack the messenger" post. That is a form of personal attack, and is a violation of forum guidelines. I very rarely give neg reps, but you earned that one.

- Your response was referencing a different thread. There have been plenty of threads on Donnelly. Obviously you have read some of them. There was plenty of time for you to give your input on Donnelly in those threads.

- You gave no references for your accusations.

- As far as the firearm incident, Donnelly is a big 2nd Amendment supporter. That is why a lot of people liked him. Of course he has guns. He accidentally had one in his briefcase when he went to the airport. Do you think he was going to hijack a plane? Rob the Burger King in the airport? It was a honest mistake, even more understandable for a gun enthusiast. Should he be in jail for that? Disqualified from running for office? What should his punishment be for accidentally taking a prohibited item into the sacred TSA zone?

- He was not "convicted" of anything for his freshman year, alcohol fueled prank. There was no felony. It did not count as a "conviction", and it was expunged from his record. He and his buddy immediately returned the "stolen" stereo from the dorm room the next morning when they woke up. It's a non-issue.

- You are certainly keeping up with the GOP establishment smear campaign. Everyone has something in their past that can be blown out of proportion, twisted and then repeated ad-nauseum by pundits and propagandists. Three felonies a day. Why do you put so much faith in campaign smears?

pcosmar
06-04-2014, 05:42 PM
Oh,,and for anyone that is unaware.. A criminal record does not bar someone from running or serving in public office (except for Voting law violations)

The guys name was still likely on the ballot and folks might not have known he dropped out.

Brian4Liberty
06-04-2014, 05:51 PM
Oh,,and for anyone that is unaware.. A criminal record does not bar someone from running or serving in public office (except for Voting law violations)

The guys name was still likely on the ballot and folks might not have known he dropped out.

Yes, his name was still on the ballot, because they didn't have time to remove it. He case was a major story in the State.

Does being indicted and awaiting trial prevent serving? Being locked in the Federal Pen would make it pretty hard to serve.

PS. IIRC, Yee is up on some voting law violations too.

Brian4Liberty
06-04-2014, 05:52 PM
Why did 287,000-plus Californians vote for Leland Yee? (http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2014/06/03/why-did-200000-plus-californians-vote-for-leland-yee/)


One of the odder stats of Election Night: As of Wednesday morning, 287,590 Californians had cast ballots for indicted state Sen. Leland Yee for secretary of state. That’s good for nearly 10 percent of the vote.

That’s also more votes than five other secretary of state candidates who haven’t been indicted received.

Never mind for a second that the San Francisco Democrat has been indicted on multiple federal money laundering and weapons charges. Yee DROPPED OUT of the race in March. Folks were voting for an indicted man who didn’t even want their votes.

Brian4Liberty
06-04-2014, 05:53 PM
What the hell is wrong with California? (Leland Yee edition) (http://twitchy.com/2014/06/04/what-the-hell-is-wrong-with-california-leland-yee-edition/)

pcosmar
06-04-2014, 06:04 PM
PS. IIRC, Yee is up on some voting law violations too.

Well,, I am not trying to justify anything.. some serious scumbags have been in office for decades,, elected over and over again..

at least this one didn't win,, but is the guy who won any better at all? I mean ,, it's California. It would take a lot more than one that was totally amazing to make any difference at all.

Zippyjuan
06-04-2014, 08:50 PM
Some people make "protest votes"- vote for some other guy- almost any guy- other than the main candidates. "Voting only encourages them". Voter turnout was extremely low in this election- below the previous record of 28%. Obama Birther Queen/ Lawyer/ Dentist/ Real Estate Agent Orly Taiz got three percent in her race for Attorney general.

torchbearer
06-04-2014, 08:56 PM
Democracy- where every idiot gets a vote on things they know nothing about nor understand.

Brian4Liberty
06-04-2014, 09:34 PM
Some people make "protest votes"- vote for some other guy- almost any guy- other than the main candidates. "Voting only encourages them". Voter turnout was extremely low in this election- below the previous record of 28%. Obama Birther Queen/ Lawyer/ Dentist/ Real Estate Agent Orly Taiz got three percent in her race for Attorney general.

What's really sad is that the Libertarian came in dead last, even lost to Orly Taitz. And that was the only Libertarian on the entire ballot.

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/attorney-general/

puppetmaster
06-04-2014, 09:40 PM
These are the people he promised shoulder fired rocket launchers to.

Occam's Banana
06-04-2014, 09:47 PM
Are you saying that all politicians are criminals?

No, I am not. The phrasing of my question explicitly referenced "the criminals who haven't" dropped out of a race - NOT "all politicians who haven't" done so. Hence, any politicians who are NOT criminals are not a subject of my question. Of course, the question then becomes, "What do we mean by 'criminal'?" Do we mean the mere violation of this, that or the other statutory rule(s) enacted & enforced by the State - or do we mean the violation of fundamental principles of justice, liberty and the rule of law? Yee's opponents may not be criminals by the former defintion - but they may very well be by the latter. (And if they are, then do Yee's statutory peccadilloes really matter that much in the "bigger picture" you mention next ... ?)


That and the merits of democratic process in a Republic are bigger picture issues.

I think the latter of the above definitions of "criminal" is much more significant, important, relevant & dispositive than the former when it comes to the "bigger picture" involving the "democratic process in a Republic." Padilla and Peterson may not be "statutory" criminals - but that is merely the absence of a negative, not the presence of a positive.


As far as the the Padilla and Peterson voters, see my OP. They aren't necessarily any more well informed. They may just like the names. But we can say that the people who voted for Yee missed the fact that he wasn't in the race anymore.

But we could say exactly the same thing - i.e., that they "missed the fact that [Yee] wasn't in the race anymore" - about many (probably most, and theoretically even all) of the people who voted for Padilla or Peterson, too. So what warrant have we been given to exempt any significant number of Padilla and Peterson voters from the very same assessment we are being invited to apply to Yee voters? Why should we single out the ones who voted for Yee as "sheer" ignoramuses (as did the political science professor in the OP article)?

I get what you're saying (i.e., that some Padilla and Peterson voters are ignoramuses, too), and I completely agree with you as far as it goes. I just think it goes even further (and gets even worse) than that. Those "ignorant" Yee voters are not especially "bad" as voters go - that is, there doesn't seem to be anything we can say about Yee voters that couldn't be applied just as much to Padilla and Peterson voters.


There will be a portion of the Peterson and Padilla voters who were well-informed. The same can't be said about any of the Yee voters.

On the contrary - it might be that the same can be said about some of the Yee voters.
We can't simply say that everyone who voted for Yee must have been "ill-informed" and unaware that he had dropped out.
Many people voted for Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012 knowing full well that he was "out of the race" - but they voted for him anyway.
How many Yee voters knowingly did the same - because they preferred him, or as a protest vote against the other Democrat, or whatever?

Granted, there might not be very many Yee voters who were aware he had dropped out. But there surely could be some. And no particular reason has been given for thinking that the portion of "well-informed" Padilla or Peterson voters who knew that Yee was out is significantly greater than the portion of "well-informed" Yee voters who knew that Yee was out. So to repeat what I said earlier: there doesn't seem to be anything we can say about Yee voters that couldn't be applied just as much to Padilla and Peterson voters.


The more, and also the well informed voters who probably would have voted for Yee (D) most likely switched to Padilla (D).

Being "well-informed" because you do not vote for a candidate that you know has dropped out of a race is not, ceteris paribus, any real improvement over being "ignorant" because you vote for a candidate that you do not know has dropped out of a race. I would much rather live in a democracy under which an "ignorant" majority of voters unwittingly vote for "dropped out" candidates who support things like fewer or lower taxes, non-interventionsim, economic freedom, civil liberties, etc. than one in which a "well-informed" majority of voters (who are "up" on all the latest political punditry and scandals) vote for candidates who support things like more or higher taxes, interventionism, economic regulation, restrictions on or violations of civil liberties, etc.

But as the OP story reveals, democracy is a mass exercise in Pavlovian lever-pulling. And even worse, whether the lever-pullers are "ignorant" or "well-informed" doesn't really seem to matter much in the end - da pooch is gonna get scrood either way.

RonPaulMall
06-05-2014, 12:24 AM
If Yee had the Mexican surname rather than the Asian one, he would have come in first or second and moved on to the general election.

Zippyjuan
06-05-2014, 12:44 AM
Why? Are the majority of Californians from Mexico?

It is true that Alex Padilla had the most votes but he was also the only candidate who currently had a political office- he is a state senator so he had the best name recognition- the governor's race had a couple people with a hispanic surname- Richard Aguirre (Republican) got 0.9%, Louis Rodriguez (Green Party) 1.5% so their names had nothing to do with it.

RonPaulMall
06-05-2014, 01:49 AM
Why? Are the majority of Californians from Mexico?

It is true that Alex Padilla had the most votes but he was also the only candidate who currently had a political office- he is a state senator so he had the best name recognition- the governor's race had a couple people with a hispanic surname- Richard Aguirre (Republican) got 0.9%, Louis Rodriguez (Green Party) 1.5% so their names had nothing to do with it.

Not a majority, but close to 40%, which is much more than the Asian population. Everyone knows who the Governor is, but for unknown offices, name means everything. All things being equal the Mexicans will vote the Mexican candidate, the Asians will vote the Asian candidate, and the Whites will vote the White candidate. And in races like that, its best to have the last name which corresponds to the race which has the most votes. Yee trumps Padilla in certain sections of California, but not in a statewide race.

Brian4Liberty
06-05-2014, 03:36 PM
But we could say exactly the same thing - i.e., that they "missed the fact that [Yee] wasn't in the race anymore" - about many (probably most, and theoretically even all) of the people who voted for Padilla or Peterson, too. So what warrant have we been given to exempt any significant number of Padilla and Peterson voters from the very same assessment we are being invited to apply to Yee voters? Why should we single out the ones who voted for Yee as "sheer" ignoramuses (as did the political science professor in the OP article)?

Without the scandal, Yee probably would have gotten just about the same percentage as Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsome (around 50%). He is well-known, and was the number 2 Democrat in the California legislature. He only got 10%. I would still say that most Padilla voters would have voted for Yee if not for the scandal. But I do agree we are splitting hairs as to level of knowledge on the issues.


We can't simply say that everyone who voted for Yee must have been "ill-informed" and unaware that he had dropped out. Many people voted for Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012 knowing full well that he was "out of the race" - but they voted for him anyway.
How many Yee voters knowingly did the same - because they preferred him, or as a protest vote against the other Democrat, or whatever?

Granted, there might not be very many Yee voters who were aware he had dropped out. But there surely could be some.

Good point. There could have been quite a few that voted for him anyway. He probably still got the Tong vote. ;)

Suzanimal
07-02-2015, 05:22 AM
Ex-state Sen. Leland Yee pleads guilty to racketeering in corruption case

...

Then, after taking an oath before U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer, the San Francisco Democrat admitted to racketeering, concluding an unruly case, involving public corruption, promises of gun-running and more, that shook Sacramento.

“Today’s news turns the page on one of the darker chapters of the Senate’s history,” Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) said in a statement.

The pleas entered Wednesday by Yee; his political fundraiser and consultant Keith Jackson; Jackson’s son, Brandon Jackson; and sports promoter Marlon Sullivan bring an end to one of two cases connected to a massive federal probe that initially targeted a Chinatown figure known as “Shrimp Boy,” now accused of organized crime activities.

The case, with 29 defendants lumped into a single indictment (one had since died) and eventually split into two cases, has produced 9 million pages of documents and countless hours of audio recordings, defense attorneys said.

Prosecutors alleged that Yee can be heard in the recordings speaking bluntly about granting legislative favors in exchange for campaign contributions, first for his failed 2011 bid for San Francisco mayor and later for his aborted run for secretary of state.

“We gotta drag it out, man. We gotta juice this thing,” the indictment quoted Yee as telling an undercover agent who claimed to be connected to an NFL team that wanted to “help” Yee in exchange for his vote on a worker’s compensation bill affecting the athletes.


Known as a gun control advocate in the Legislature, Yee, 67, was also accused of offering — in exchange for campaign donations — to broker a major weapons sale between a gun dealer and an undercover agent claiming to be a member of the New Jersey mob.

“Do I think we can make some money? I think we can make some money,” the senator said, according to the complaint. “Do I think we can get the goods? I think we can get the goods.”

Yee, who spared himself a trial where those sealed recordings and others would have been publicly shared, received no assurance that his prison sentence, which Breyer is scheduled to hand down on Oct. 21, would fall below the 20-year maximum spelled out in federal guidelines.

...

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-leland-yee-plea-20150701-story.html#page=1

oyarde
07-02-2015, 08:35 AM
These are the people he promised shoulder fired rocket launchers to.

Yes . And the people who wanted him to continue in corruption .

Ronin Truth
07-02-2015, 10:09 AM
Gee, it kinda makes ya wonder how many votes, if he hadn't dropped out?