- This topic has 21 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 9 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
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.
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?
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.)
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
WolfishMusings: It’s rare to see you post on a thread without mentioning your emuna pshuto in Gehenom. What happened? You stopped believing?
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
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…
Id Florida 2000 didn’t warrant a recall, with only 539 votes difference & all the dimples & shards:- What would ever determine an election recall?
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
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.
The anagram of “Election results” is “Lies, let’s recount”
Cool, no???
??? ??? ??? ????
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.
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.
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.
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
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.