YWN Coffee Room » Politics

Recall Election

(22 posts)
  • Started 11 months ago by I can only try
  • Latest reply from WolfishMusings

Tags:

No tags yet.

  1. I can only try
    "We all try. You succeed." George HaChasid - Slayer of Trolls.

    Wisconsin governor Scott Walker survived a union-driven recall election yesterday and will remain in office.

    In 2003, California governor Gray Davis was thrown out of office via a recall election.

    In both of the above cases, no crime by the office-holders was committed or alleged, there were simply enough voters who wanted a chance at a “do over” of the vote.

    Some states allow a recall without any allegations of impropriety or criminal activity, some require cause (similar to criminal indictment), and others don’t have a recall procedure.

    What are your thoughts regarding the recall process?
    Which offices should or should not allow it?
    What positive or negative consequences of allowing recall elections can you think of?

    Posted 11 months ago #
  2. Tomche
    Joseph

    I think every elected office (other than POTUS) should be recallable by the electorate. That being said, the standard to force an election should be very high (i.e. number of petitions.)

    Posted 11 months ago #
  3. popa_bar_abba
    Incorrigible; semi-retarded; eccentric; perhaps a man; somewhere between mean and average; sometimes only a bit over the top; arbitrarily cynical.

    They required a lot of petitions. But there is no way that the petitions were actually each from a separate person, and all eligible to vote.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  4. BTGuy
    Member

    It would be nice to know, and I think almost obligatory for those volunteering to be involved with the election process, that they would get it right the first time.

    In fact, perhaps every election should be run twice, just like an accounting sheet, to ensure the numbers are correct.

    Citizens deserve better than sloppy, and apparently wreckless vote tabulation.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  5. I can only try
    "We all try. You succeed." George HaChasid - Slayer of Trolls.

    Personally, I don’t like the idea of recall elections.

    IMO, an elected official should be able to serve his term and (attempt to) accomplish his agenda without having to look over his shoulder and constantly worry about the immediate popularity of his decisions. As an example, both Presidents Reagan and Clinton were unpopular in the second year of their first terms (Clinton extremely so), yet by the time their second election rolled around, they had become hugely popular and won landslide victories. Furthermore, the recall process is vulnerable to union and other populist campaigns which can mobilize a large enough minority to force the recall, and can even (in some cases) put someone into office with far less than 50% of the vote. California’s process is particularly ridiculous, since the sitting governor can be thrown out of office despite having much greater support than the candidate who replaces him.

    There are some situations in which an elected official will need to be removed from office before the expiration of their term.
    -In the event of proven or likely criminal activity by the office-holder, an impeachment process exists, and has in fact been used several times to remove officials at all levels from office.
    -There also needs to be some way of determining diminished mental capacity and removing someone who is no longer capable of serving.

    I have less of a disagreement with states that require allegations of impropriety before allowing a recall election (since this is similar to impeachment), but I nevertheless do disagree even with those states.

    Thanks to those who took the time to read and respond to this.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  6. WolfishMusings
    The Wolf

    There also needs to be some way of determining diminished mental capacity and removing someone who is no longer capable of serving.

    Such a mechanism exists at the Federal Level for the office of President.

    From the 25th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

    Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

    Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

    The New York Consitution provides a similar provision regarding the Governor (Article IV, Section 5)

    In case the governor is impeached, is absent from the state or is otherwise unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office of governor, the lieutenant-governor shall act as governor until the inability shall cease or until the term of the governor shall expire.

    I would imagine (but I can't say that I am sure) that the method of making such determination is governed by law.

    The Wolf

    Posted 11 months ago #
  7. I can only try
    "We all try. You succeed." George HaChasid - Slayer of Trolls.

    WolfishMusings-

    Thank you for the info.

    I would imagine (but I can't say that I am sure) that the method of making such determination is governed by law.
    I’m not sure if this would be possible, since no matter how precisely the law may try to define “unable to serve”, whether or not the criteria are met is probably still going to be decided by opinion.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  8. Csar
    Joseph

    That's not correct, it will be decided by law not opinion. The public will have an opinion (actually many divergent opinions), but we are a nation of laws and ultimately the law determines the result.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  9. WolfishMusings
    The Wolf

    I’m not sure if this would be possible, since no matter how precisely the law may try to define “unable to serve”, whether or not the criteria are met is probably still going to be decided by opinion.

    Sure it would. The criteria could be the opinions of several people, as is the case with the President (as spelled out in the Amendment).

    The Wolf

    Posted 11 months ago #
  10. WolfishMusings
    The Wolf

    That's not correct, it will be decided by law not opinion. The public will have an opinion (actually many divergent opinions), but we are a nation of laws and ultimately the law determines the result.

    The law may well specify that the opinions of key people be the deciding factor, as it is with the case of the President.

    The Wolf

    Posted 11 months ago #
  11. Csar
    Joseph

    I understood ICOT to mean that he thinks public opinion would be the determining factor. I disputed that. If I misunderstood ICOT, then I apologize.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  12. WolfishMusings
    The Wolf

    I understood ICOT to mean that he thinks public opinion would be the determining factor. I disputed that. If I misunderstood ICOT, then I apologize.

    Nope, I misunderstood you. I was mistaken as to whom you were responding to.

    That's why I generally either include a quote in my response, or I address the poster by name.

    The Wolf

    Posted 11 months ago #
  13. I can only try
    "We all try. You succeed." George HaChasid - Slayer of Trolls.

    Clarifications:
    1) “em>There also needs to be some way of determining diminished mental capacity and removing someone who is no longer capable of serving.”
    In this earlier post of mine, it certainly looks like I’m saying this is something that doesn’t yet exist, and should be created. That isn’t what I meant. What I was trying to say is that the ability to remove someone who has done nothing wrong but can no longer serve is also important.
    The fact that I said in my previous sentence “In the event of proven or likely criminal activity by the office-holder, an impeachment process exists” makes it even more indicative that I was saying no such process exists for inability to serve. I didn’t bother correcting this earlier because I didn’t think it was important.

    2) I thought that “WolfishMusings”s statement that “I would imagine (but I can't say that I am sure) that the method of making such determination is governed by law.” was referring to both presidential and gubernatorial removal from office. Since the requirement for the President’s removal is spelled out as “…transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office” I assumed that by “…the method of making such determination is governed by law.” meant the method by which those individuals make such a determination. This is what I felt would be opinion driven – some might think a President has crossed a line, while others might not.
    Once “WolfishMusings” explained that - a) he was referring to the Governor only, and b) He meant people’s opinions, not the means at which they arrived at those opinions – it’s clear that my earlier statement of “…whether or not the criteria are met is probably still going to be decided by opinion” was based on a misunderstanding and isn’t applicable.

    3) Csar- no apology needed – misunderstandings make threads more lively ☺. “WolfishMusings” explanation of what I was saying is correct, but (as you can see from parts #1 and 2 of this post) your misunderstanding is far from the only one. (Follow-up – I see he misunderstood who you were addressing – I think it’s become an epidemic.)

    Posted 11 months ago #
  14. zichmich
    Member

    WolfishMusings: It's rare to see you post on a thread without mentioning your emuna pshuto in Gehenom. What happened? You stopped believing?

    Posted 11 months ago #
  15. WolfishMusings
    The Wolf

    WolfishMusings: It's rare to see you post on a thread without mentioning your emuna pshuto in Gehenom. What happened? You stopped believing?

    My apologies. I didn't realize that it was a requirement that I feel terrible about myself in *every* thread.

    I'll try harder next time.

    The Wolf

    Posted 11 months ago #
  16. zichmich
    Member

    WolfishMusings: "My apologies. I didn't realize that it was a requirement that I feel terrible about myself in *every* thread.

    I'll try harder next time.

    The Wolf

    ...and I thought you finally overcame your obssesion in writing deragatory about yourself. Oh well... Maybe one day...

    Posted 11 months ago #
  17. 147
    -105

    Id Florida 2000 didn't warrant a recall, with only 539 votes difference & all the dimples & shards:- What would ever determine an election recall?

    Posted 11 months ago #
  18. WolfishMusings
    The Wolf

    Id Florida 2000 didn't warrant a recall, with only 539 votes difference & all the dimples & shards:- What would ever determine an election recall?

    I think you're confusing a recount with a recall election.

    There are no provisions for a presidential recall, and you certainly can't have a recall election for *one* state in a presidential election.

    And, since zichmich won't be happy unless I put myself down, I know that I am going to burn eternally in hell for the grievous sin of pointing out a mistake of one of my betters.

    The Wolf

    Posted 11 months ago #
  19. Give Me a Break II
    actual name: Give Me a Break II

    In my opinion, recall elections are a bad idea. There's a reason why, for example, the Framers gave Senators six-year terms - stability. As evidenced in the Walker-Barrett recall election, it can lead to chaos.

    Governors, for example, are elected for four years (except in NH and VT) - not "until such time as we decide to kick you out".

    In case of serious maladministration, there is the impeachment process.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  20. yekke2
    Member

    The anagram of "Election results" is "Lies, let's recount"

    Cool, no???
    סוף דבר הכל נשמע

    Posted 10 months ago #
  21. getzel1
    Adds much humor here :)

    TLS EXCLUSIVE: A hefty contribution made by Rich Roberts to the campaign of Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, landed the Doctor with threatening emails at his company, TLS has exclusively learned.

    When unions across the country were pouring many millions of dollars into Wisconsin to remove the Governor, Rich Roberts – after checking that Governor Walker’s values were very similar to many Torah values regarding family, marriage, Israel, etc, decided to donate $50,000 to the Governor’s reelection campaign. But Roberts didn’t expect the donation to be publicized.

    “I never contemplated that my donation might be made public nor that there would be any negative consequences to it”, Rich Roberts tells TLS. “Apparently, the election was on a Tuesday and on the Wednesday before the election the contributions to the Governor’s reelection campaign were made public in accordance with the election regulations. I also never contemplated that my donation might be the second largest donation, in the country, to his campaign.”

    As a result, Roberts was listed as one of the major contributors to Governor Walker’s reelection campaign.

    “That is when things got ugly”, Roberts says.

    “On the next day, the Thursday before the election, I received emails from management at my company there had been two threatening emails sent to me through my company’s website”, Roberts tells TLS. ”The emails said that I was “anti-worker”, called me bad names, and said that I must move my company out of Philadelphia. These members of my management, who advanced through the ranks from hourly workers to now being members of management, were very angry at what they perceived as blatantly false renditions of my attitude towards “workers”. These people have seen how generous and caring I have been towards my employees for decades.”

    Moreover, the company had been sold several months ago and all of the employees were about to receive very large payments for their stock options.

    “The writers of the emails were too incompetent to have searched information about me to realize that I could no longer move the company from Philadelphia, even if I had wanted to, since the company had recently been sold.”

    Roberts adds, “when I am threatened, my strong inclination is to fight back harder than before. I received a request for an interview from the Associated Press but I declined to be interviewed since a political campaign needs to manage the information flow themselves. I also did not respond directly to the authors of the two threatening emails. However, I contacted the Walker campaign that day, told them what had happened, and I proceeded to wire transfer another $50,000 to them on the next day.”

    Governor Walker won a very strong recall election victory four days later. The next morning, Wednesday morning, Governor Walker called Roberts and apologized for the threatening emails that he had received.

    “He then said that “apparently you decided to double down”. He expressed his appreciation. I told him that he should remain a person of integrity, regardless of the personal price that he might pay, and that the people of his state are fortunate that they have him as their leader. He has put his state on a fiscally healthy path and employment is rising in Wisconsin.” TLS.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  22. WolfishMusings
    The Wolf

    There's a reason why, for example, the Framers gave Senators six-year terms - stability

    Well, to be fair, the Framers had the Senators elected by state legislatures, not the people as they are today.

    The Wolf

    Posted 10 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.