Renault on 16/5/2012 at 20:00
Hey, it's unlike me to get very political, so I won't, not really. Just wondered what all of you think about what's going on in my home state here at the moment - there's a (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_gubernatorial_recall_election,_2012) Recall Election going on, and politics aside, I think it's BS.
(Btw, it's really hard to find a neutral article discussing the recall, so for better or worse I just went with the Wikipedia entry).
I'm not really interested in asserting who's right or wrong, or left or right (if you must know, I'm usually pretty moderate, but I lean towards the right). What I think is completely fucked up is the recall process itself. Isn't this why we have terms for elected officials? Now all this time and money has been spent (millions of $$$ of course, nothing's cheap), and three weeks from now we have same exact election that we had in this state less than two years ago, current Governor Scott Walker (repubican) vs. Tom Barrett (democrat).
At the time, Walker beat Barrett roughly 55%-45%.
Current polls show Walker is now leading 50%-45%, with 5% undecided.
Didn't we just do this? And where does it end? There's nothing stopping either side from just enacted a recall whenever an election doesn't go their way. And is that really the point of a recall?
The process is messed up, and is a huge waste of taxpayers time and money. All you need to start a recall is a list of signatures from 25% of the total number of voters in the most recent election. Most elections are fairly close, at least 60/40, so the way things are set up, it's way too easy to initiate a recall.
I think there should be a larger requirement for recalls. One way would be if a candidate has been convicted or a crime or some kind of wrongdoing. That's an obvious one. I can also see the argument that a recall is deserved if there is concrete evidence and hard facts that the candidate deceived the public by campaigning for one thing and then voting in completely the opposite direction. Not sure how you would go about ascertaining or confirming that however. But getting a bunch of signatures on a page is kind of pointless when you only need 25% of the recent turnout. And if this particular recall is successful, you can bet it will become somewhat of an epidemic for future elections.
I know it's easy for me to say, because the guy I voted for last election is in office, but I really think the situation is fubar no matter who is in office. Bottom line: If you don't like your elected officials, elect someone else the next time. That's how american politics is supposed to work. Or at least I thought so.
Your thoughts?
Stitch on 16/5/2012 at 20:21
Democracy in action. When someone steps into office and suddenly veers from their campaign promises and begins to make changes as dictated by a non-local partisan think tank*, why not give the people the ability to do something about it?
And if getting enough signatures to institute a recall election is as easy as you claim, then why aren't more of these recall initiatives making the cut?
*Essentially, Walker has completely abandoned what was previously considered the Wisconsin Conservative platform (that he ran on) and instead tacked hard right, effectively dryrunning some of the national Republican initiatives.
Renault on 16/5/2012 at 21:46
That's all good, but what about a recall where a candidate doesn't veer from his campaign promises? Since there's no process for qualification, it doesn't really matter if the candidate veered or not.
When millions of dollars of cost are involved, there should be a better method for recall. You shouldn't just get a re-vote because you don't like the way the previous election went. And yes, even if Walker wins but the vote is close, I think you'll see more of these scenarios in the near future in other states because it's not that difficult to initiate. Hell, you may see another one in WI a year from now if Barrett wins.
fett on 16/5/2012 at 21:50
I agree - and the fact this can happen (and probably should happen more often) might be a strong incentive for politicians to keep campaign promises. Among the many problems in our system right now is the fact that elected officials aren't afraid of their constitutes anymore. They're more afraid of lobbyists, but they can't very well help the lobbyists if they're no longer in office because they're a lying fuck, can they? It seems to me they need to be in a tight place like that, at least until that fear is restored. Maybe I'm thinking too simply about it.
Telliamed on 16/5/2012 at 22:00
Schwarzenegger got into office thanks to a recall election.
Al_B on 16/5/2012 at 22:03
Is that the setup line for a joke?
Sombras on 16/5/2012 at 23:45
I think Stitch nailed it. As *relatively* easy as it is to recall an elected official, you don't see it happen a lot because, frankly, most politicians don't screw with their constituencies as unabashedly as Walker has. I think most are content to piss and moan about their hated opposite-party office holder if said politician is at least doing what was expected. But Walker up and freaked out a BUNCH of people with the hardline anti-union stance he's adopted.
LarryG on 17/5/2012 at 01:11
Quote Posted by Telliamed
Schwarzenegger got into office thanks to a recall election.
Quote Posted by Al_B
Is that the setup line for a joke?
Look at the resulting California budget deficits. Unfortunately the joke was on us. And still is.
But back to Wisconsin which is already in progress . . .
Phatose on 17/5/2012 at 01:40
Realistically, recall election are pretty rare for a number of reasons. 25% of the recent turnout in signatures may not sound like a lot in theory - until you're the one financing the efforts to get that 25%. There's not some appointed day for people to show up and vote, so you have to track them down. That gets expensive, fast. Especially in a country like ours, where 50% turn out in presidential elections is normal, with 30% for mid-terms. Most eligible voters just don't give a shit. And the one who do give a shit aren't differentiating themselves just by showing the fuck up like in an election - you have to hunt them down instead.
And if you pull it off, all you get is another race against a guy who already beat your side, a few years earlier then you'd get if you had done nothing at all.
Means you've got to be a pretty big fuckup for it to happen to you. You have to not only manage to convince your opponents that millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours are a reasonable price to pay to get you out of office early, and you have to alienate enough of your own supporters that you won't win a second time.
Beyond that...meh. Recall elections aren't for criminal acts - that's what impeachment is for. These are for gross incompetence.
Stitch on 17/5/2012 at 14:25
Quote Posted by Phatose
25% of the recent turnout in signatures may not sound like a lot in theory - until you're the one financing the efforts to get that 25%.
And this is one of the core things Brethren got wrong in his initial post. Yes, recall election would be a waste of time and resources
if they were actually easy to initiate. But they're not--you can't kick the recall into motion until a year has passed, and that 25% is actually pretty difficult to achieve in practice. The fact that opposition to Walker was able to easily surpass that 25% barrier has nothing to do with ease and everything to do with the sheer size of the hornet's nest that he kicked.
