This isn’t a vote, this is a signature gathering drive. Many people signed this petition at a grocery store or street corner who signed on the wrong piece of paper (signatures are separated by region and must be turned in to the correct place), signed with a different address than they are registered at (usually accidentally), signed more than once (vols collecting signatures asked them to sign again to make sure it was counted) and there are a million other things that could go wrong.
45% is a high rejection rate, which points to, usually, poor training of staff and volunteers collecting signatures, but it’s not unheard of. I’ve participated in initiative petition and recall petitions in a number of states and a normal rejection rate is 20-25%.
To be clear: I’m not saying fraud didn’t happen, and I’m not saying valid signatures weren’t rejected. However, this is apples and oranges.
The difference of standards. For example, if Trump were the governor of California, do you think the powers to be would do a signature verification on the recall votes?
But it’s not votes. In order to have an election, the recall movement has to gather completely unverified signatures from the public, usually in public areas. Heck, as far as we knew Dems were signing them with intentionally fake names to make the organizers think they had more sigs than they actually did.
Then there is all of the errors that happen in getting signatures to the right places. If I accidentally turn in 100 signatures to San Bernardino instead of San Clemente, all 100 of those go straight in the trash and count for the denominator.
And yes, look at every recall petition and ballot measure in state history, they are all likely north of 20% rejection rate. The organizers know this going in.
It’s two separate issues and conflating them makes us look like we don’t know what is going on.
I’m not saying it’s not a bit odd, that is a really high rejection rate, but it’s closer to 80% higher than expected, not a few hundred percent Higher.
This isn’t a vote, this is a signature gathering drive. Many people signed this petition at a grocery store or street corner who signed on the wrong piece of paper (signatures are separated by region and must be turned in to the correct place), signed with a different address than they are registered at (usually accidentally), signed more than once (vols collecting signatures asked them to sign again to make sure it was counted) and there are a million other things that could go wrong.
45% is a high rejection rate, which points to, usually, poor training of staff and volunteers collecting signatures, but it’s not unheard of. I’ve participated in initiative petition and recall petitions in a number of states and a normal rejection rate is 20-25%.
To be clear: I’m not saying fraud didn’t happen, and I’m not saying valid signatures weren’t rejected. However, this is apples and oranges.
Why is this stickied?
The difference of standards. For example, if Trump were the governor of California, do you think the powers to be would do a signature verification on the recall votes?
Remember, EVERY vote counts.
But it’s not votes. In order to have an election, the recall movement has to gather completely unverified signatures from the public, usually in public areas. Heck, as far as we knew Dems were signing them with intentionally fake names to make the organizers think they had more sigs than they actually did.
Then there is all of the errors that happen in getting signatures to the right places. If I accidentally turn in 100 signatures to San Bernardino instead of San Clemente, all 100 of those go straight in the trash and count for the denominator.
And yes, look at every recall petition and ballot measure in state history, they are all likely north of 20% rejection rate. The organizers know this going in.
It’s two separate issues and conflating them makes us look like we don’t know what is going on.
I’m not saying it’s not a bit odd, that is a really high rejection rate, but it’s closer to 80% higher than expected, not a few hundred percent Higher.