Stitch on 17/5/2012 at 14:36
Quote Posted by fett
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.
While this is a nice idea, I do think it falls apart a little in practice. Even well-meaning politicians tend to make promises they can't really keep once in office, as actual government (and the resulting public opinion) is a nightmarishly tricky minefield to navigate.
But someone like Walker who runs as a Wisconsin center-right conservative who then turns our state into a test ground for ridiculously partisan initiatives can fuck right off.
Renault on 6/6/2012 at 15:42
Well that was pointless. :p
demagogue on 6/6/2012 at 16:48
A big flurry of squawking and feathers for nothing, yeah. I didn't like that the whole thing was such a transparent setup for the 2012 elections for both sides anyway. Listening to the radio, you'd have thought it was practically a vote between Stalin's communes vs Hitler's labor camps.
But I'm a wonk, and the horserace side of politics always turned me off, not least because it's so focused on picking out exactly the kind of people you *don't* want to have a reasoned wonkish discussion with about nuanced political issues like the balance between reducing unemployment and labor rights.
arandomgamer02 on 7/6/2012 at 03:00
The media is bringing up the point that Walker outspent his opponent 7 to 1, 8 to 1, whatever it is, thereby all but assuring victory from the fickle American public; and if Republicans do that in the fall, then Democrats will lose. But doesn't President Obama have, at the very least, equal if not more fundraising ability than Romney? The media (read: MSNBC) is trying to rationalize the loss in Wisconsin.
Anyway, to sum up the recall election: "Okey dokey then. NEXT!"
scumble on 7/6/2012 at 07:49
Quote Posted by Stitch
Even well-meaning politicians tend to make promises they can't really keep once in office, as actual government (and the resulting public opinion) is a nightmarishly tricky minefield to navigate.
This is a bit of a problem for me, as it can be rather easy to make promises when you are trying to get people to vote for you. How exactly is it possible to decide between candidates when it isn't easy to believe that what they are selling to the electorate is actually going to happen.
Brethren's original complaint was about money involved in elections, but if there is a way to make them less resource intensive and less of a big show of who has the flashiest campaign it may be possible to have quick elections as a check on politicians veering off course. Also, over time if politicians make more sensible promises and the electorate ends up expecting less impressive change each time the process might settle down nicely.
There are a lot of "ifs" in there though. Such is my skepticism when it comes to government reform - can the bloated beast of bureaucracy move fast enough to change before falling apart?
Shug on 7/6/2012 at 12:44
Thank God for His abundant grace, that's all I can say
Stitch on 7/6/2012 at 16:28
Quote Posted by arandomgamer02
The media is bringing up the point that Walker outspent his opponent 7 to 1, 8 to 1, whatever it is, thereby all but assuring victory from the fickle American public; and if Republicans do that in the fall, then Democrats will lose. But doesn't President Obama have, at the very least, equal if not more fundraising ability than Romney? The media (read: MSNBC) is trying to rationalize the loss in Wisconsin.
People are desperate to pull some larger message out of all this and apply it to fall, which is pretty silly when the sole message of the failed recall attempt is "people are wary of recalls and don't for the most part feel that strongly about union rights."
The reason my side lost this battle is actually pretty simple: we ran as the anti-Walker option as opposed to defining and selling our candidate, Tom Barrett. Running an "at least we're not the other guy" campaign didn't work for Kerry in 2004 and it didn't work for Barrett now, and it's not going to work for Romney this fall. Anger riles people up but it doesn't age well.
That all being said, Brethren's bankrupt misreading of the recall ignores the fact that it energized a lot of people and resulted in an incredibly high voter turnout, which is good (even if it also provided the excuse for a bitter partisan battle, which isn't).
Democracy in action is still democracy in action.
Renault on 7/6/2012 at 18:47
Stitch is completely missing the point, which was from the start, that the recall election was unnecessary, and frankly unjustified.
The margin of victory was almost identical between the 2010 and 2012 elections, and actually a bit higher for the incumbent in the recall election.
Think about that.
Despite all the uproar in Madison, the bickering, the demonstrations, the national stage and CNN coverage, the apparently "huge" effort to collect enough signatures to initiate a recall election, Scott Walker actually won by a bigger margin than the first time.
That doesn't sound like democracy to me. That sounds like bureaucracy. And then there's the matter of the $20 million dollar cost of the recall, charged of course to the taxpayers. Tack on the fact that nearly 70% of people polled said that recall elections are inappropriate either in any case or only if there is a case of official misconduct. Makes you start to wonder where the liberals got all those signatures from in the first place.
Sorry, but democracy was in action just fine the first time. And I don't think "getting people energized" is very good justification for any of this mess. :p
Stitch on 7/6/2012 at 20:44
Quote Posted by Brethren
Stitch is completely missing the point, which was from the start, that the recall election was unnecessary, and frankly unjustified.
Says who, you? You had the opportunity on Tuesday to voice this opinion, I had the opportunity to voice mine. Who are you to say I don't deserve that?
We need to separate the election results from the election itself. It's easy when the election doesn't result in a political change to look back and feel like it's some colossal waste, but why does the previous winner winning nullify the merit of an election? Would your opinion of the recall itself be changed if Barrett had won?
Simply put, the system worked: people got pissed off at the actions of the guy in office and took steps to kick him out. They had enough support to merit a recall, so the recall was initiated. They overreached and didn't represent the will of the majority and so the recall failed.
Not every initiative in politics needs to be successful to have merit--sometimes you need to provide avenues for speech and action even if they ultimately don't result in change.
LarryG on 8/6/2012 at 06:10
Different result in Wisconsin than California, but the joke is still on the electorate. The WI throw-the-bum-out movement lost, so they still have the same bum in office who now will claim a mandate to ruin things according to his political ideology. The CA throw-the-bum-out movement won, so we got a new clown (Arnie) who thought he had a mandate to ruin things in new and interesting ways instead. End result: the "majority" gets the representation that they deserve, and the rest of us are stuck with trying to clean up the mess later on when all the parades have gone by.
