Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (176375)	10/9/2003 11:57:01 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1584194

Apparently, voting is not an exact science: That explains it: So here are the Top 10 candidates in the California gubernatorial race: Arnold Schwarzenegger Rep 3,655,074 48.4 Cruz M. Bustamante Dem 2,409,094 31.9 Tom McClintock Rep 1,004,558 13.3 Peter Miguel Camejo Grn 210,274 2.8 Arianna Huffington Ind 42,361 0.6 Peter V. Ueberroth Rep 21,808 0.3 Larry Flynt Dem 15,245 0.3 Gary Coleman Ind 12,584 0.2 George B. Schwartzman Ind 10,818 0.2 Mary Cook Ind 9,919 0.2 So of course the obvious question: What's this with Schwartzman and Cook? I understand why the others made it to the top 10, and I even understand why they ended up where they ended up. But how did Schwartzman and Cook do it? The Oct. 6 Chicago Tribune provides an answer. First, Mary Cook is an "Adult Film Actress," and was listed as such on the ballot. That's got to be good for nearly 10,000 votes. What about Schwartzman? D'oh! "Blessed by the alphabet, George B. Schwartzman sits directly below Schwarzenegger" on the ballot. Sounds like the best theory I could come up with. But wait -- why didn't the people near Bustamante get the same boost? Or did they? I don't know, but hats off to Mr. Schwartzman in any case. volokh.com Joe