In 2021, California conservatives voted for a clearly unqualified person to replace an uninspiring governor. Though the existing governor survived the attempted recall, Larry Elder, a talk show host, received approximately 3.5 million votes, or 48% of the pro-recall selection. In third place, with almost 600,000 votes, was the most qualified and reasonable candidate, Kevin L. Faulconer. Though the Democratic Party viewed the recall's failure as evidence of success, I have a different conclusion: out of approximately 22 million registered voters able to implement greater checks and balances by favoring a moderate, only 2.7% understood democracy is most effective with competition and without complacency.
Are California voters uneducated and apathetic, or is something else influencing outcomes? Observers know California has become a de facto one-party state, from the governor’s office to most city councils. Under one-party rule, the potential for corruption increases, but also the potential to co-opt opposition. Consider, for example, access to a trial with limited public seats. Before advertising entrance rules, court staff may verbally inform media favoring the incumbent political party what to time to look for the email and then apply under a first-come, first-serve policy. If that doesn't work, a political appointee could add security or change the schedules of security staff at the entrance, then invent reasons to deny entry. (Oh, you didn't fill out the form we gave only to our preferred journalists ahead of time? No entry, sir.1) In our modern age of gerrymandering and comprehensive data processing, political apartheid is much easier to create than most people suspect.