WINNER COMES IN SECOND? WRONG.
There's been a lot of whining about the possibility that more Californians (and those illegal aliens that registered to vote when they got their driver's licenses) will vote against the recall than will actually vote for the new governor. How can this be, they complain? The new governor would have less support than Gray Davis did! It's a travesty. It's anti-democratic, they rave. "If we allow this recall to win," intellectual luminary Barbra Steisand rants, "we will be setting a dangerous precedent. In this unfair process, a candidate receiving just 30% of the vote could beat Davis, even if the governor receives 49%." But I don't remember anyone being too concerned when 57% of the public did not want Bill Clinton to be President in 1992.

Here's how the recall works. If a majority of the people don't want Gray Davis to be governor anymore, he's out, and we have a new election. If a majority of the people want to kick Gray out of the Governor's mansion, how would it be fair to allow him to continue? Is that democratic?

The new election just happens to be on the same day. Barbra's assumption is that anyone voting for Cruz Bustamante, Arianna Huffington, that Green Party loon, Mary Carey, Larry Flynt and the other assorted bright lights of the Democratic party would have switched their votes to Davis if he could be on the second ballot. Fat chance when over 50% are going to vote to throw out the trash, knowing full well that his replacement will be either Schwarzenegger or Bustamante with no more than about 35% of the vote. The electorate knows what it is doing. But I trust that Barbra would prefer that decisions about future leadership of California be entrusted to someone other than the unwashed proletariat.

Just remember, when the day is over, the majority of California's will have exercised their right to remove the powerful from office and replace him with the winner of a plurality vote. That's democracy, that's the people's will, and that's what bothers the Democrats.