Quote:
|
Thanks for the correct figures skunk. Sorry, but I don't think 1/7th of those who actually will vote, 1/15th of those who can vote, 1/23rd of those who could register to vote, and 1/50th of those who reside in the state is significant enough to overturn a candidate elected by popular vote. Think about it. Any time the losing party likes, they can probably amass a recall. I can imaging the Dems and Repugs both having their signatures ready as soon as election returns come in so that if they lose they can stifle the first months in office with a recall.
|
Well, what do you think is fair then?
I think that the recall system is a good system in itself and I wouldn't get rid of it as it ensures accountability - shame that the British don't have the same system in place! I also believe (strongly) that, in order for the system to be effective, it must be based on the number of people who voted in the previous election (apathy being a disease that is not likely to die out).
So what would be a fair figure to you then? 51% of the previous votes cast (or in this case 3.8 million signatures)?