Just a minor amount of tinfoil - but every candiate got over a 100 votes

[RobertSeattle]

I'm looking at
http://vote2003.ss.ca.gov/Returns/alpha/00.htm

I can't help but notice that every single candidate got at least 100 votes. I'm surprised. I was hoping for some nimrod candidate to get exactly one vote.

(And I'm not a vote count conspiracy theorist)

As of the post, the candidate with the least votes was a "Todd Richard Lewis" with 171. Did 171 California's really want to vote for Todd?

Is this all "Noise" meaning this is the random accidental error rate of voters on large ballots?

[Ripley]

1. Everyone has relatives that will vote for them.

Extended family, co-workers, friends could easily add up to 171.

[omshanti]

2. Which raises an interesting question...

if you had a co-worker or neighbor who was running for office, and you liked the person but didn't like his/her politics - let's say your co-worker is a republican - would you vote for them out of a sense of friendship? Or would you *say* you were going to vote for them, and then vote for another candidate? Or would you flat out say that you couldn't in all conscience vote for him/her, knowing that it might cost you your friendship?

[theboss]

5. Always vote for family

My family is politically active; mom won a landmark court case to run once (and easily won). We always campaign for family members and friends even if their politics don't line up with ours. In local politics, alliances are often more important than policy.

[JI7]

6. i wouldn't

but many people are not into politics as much as we are so they would vote for someone just because they personally know them. remember these p eople got the signatures needed which was about 60 and those 60 only need to get 1 other person to vote to make it over a 100 so it can easily be done. but i think much of it was people just voting for whoever. maybe because their name was at the top.

[RobertSeattle]

4. I just find it suprising that they all could rassle up more than 100

I guess part of it is "his/her vote will be so low that if I don't for him/her they'll know"

[SadEagle]

3. A theory..

I think what you may be seeing is people just voting for literally a random person, and so a bunch getting roughly the same low amount (except I imagine it may be skewed slightly based on how the name sounds to the person, etc.)

[ChompySnack]

7. Didn't each candidate need like 350 signatures to run

Might explain some of those votes...

[rock]

9. Wouldn't you expect, then, that 350 is the minimum

number of votes that anybody should get? Hmmmmmmm.

[RobertSeattle]

10. I thought it was some combindation of $3500 or 60 signatures

If you paid the bucks, you didn't need the signatures, and vice versi, but I couldn't find a url to point to for reference.

Obviously the signees weren't obligated to vote for the person, and several of the candidates bowed out and still gots 1000's of votes.

[hadrons]

8. I wondered that too ...

I mean does Kevin Richter really know 254 people??? I guess a lot of people just closed their eyes and picked anyone or picked a name that matched their own