Recall fever spreads east

[Skunk]

Yeah, AFTER 1 million force an election costing $70 million on a state of 50 million. (Gee, I hope those numbers are accurate.)

Well, put it into perspective - of the 23 million adults of voting age residing in California, there are only around 15.1 million people who are registered to vote.

Of the 15 million who are registered to vote, less than half cast their votes in the last election (a mere 7.4 million).

Thus, the 900,000 signatures required to get the recall election *is* a significant number.

[ 08-29-2003, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[Timber Loftis]

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.

[ 08-29-2003, 10:21 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: 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.

Gotta go with Skunk on this one TL. Only those who WILL vote make any difference and are the only ones who count. THe other lazy bastards are just whiney babies who are too lazy to take a hand in their own fate.

Of course as always other opinions may vary

As for the price tag of $70mil for the process, not even a dribble in the cup compared to the $33 BILLION debt already faced.


[ 08-29-2003, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Timber Loftis]

No offense, MagiK, but I suspect your dislike for Davis clouds your vision regarding the issue. I dislike Davis too, and I'm pulling for Arnie. But, that doesn't make it right that 51% of the voters can vote Davis out, only to have 5% of the voters elect the next governor. This election will have a higher turn-out, I'm sure. But, even given the 1/7th figure -- that's a small margin of signatures to force a re-election. Why won't the parties abuse it as in my example. The losing side will almost always have the support of > 1/7th of the voters.

California's current experience is one of democracy gone nuts. Beginning with the proposition system and the particular propositions that set this whole mess up. It's a political circus. You thought Florida was bad, now you've got Larry Flynt and Mary Carey on the same ticket. They might do well in the same movie, but not on the ticket. The last thing American politics needs is another "smut peddler who cares" commercial. Our once-grandest political system is becoming a farce, sacrificed on the altar of reality TV and infotainment.

As for the debt, every bit helps. If you owe me $33 bucks and you got 70 cents in your pocket, I expect you to be decent enough to fork it over. Now you owe me $32.30. Debt is only paid in increments.

[ 08-29-2003, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by MagiK:As for the price tag of $70mil for the process, not even a dribble in the cup compared to the $33 BILLION debt already faced. [/QB]

Great! does that mean we can send to bill to Maryland, since $70 million really isn't all that much? Hell $70 million will barely buy you a cup of coffee in LA

[Skunk]

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)?

[Timber Loftis]

I think a popular recall is wrong -- period. Terms are limited. Terms are not long. If someone's *that* horrible, the legislature can file articles of impeachment -- and they will if their constituents squawk loud enough.

The whole representative republic system is set up to limit the impact of scoundrels who get in office. More midstream elections stiffle the system. How much real *work* will CA accomplish in the three months on either side of the recall? Aren't terms only 4 years?

Democracy CAN be taken too far. If I want to reform health care, I don't WANT to put it to a popular vote. I want two legislative committees hammering over a bill meticulously during a two-month session in which they work on this and only this 12 hours a day and where they interview 150 experts on the topic and peruse 30,000 pages of educated thought on the topic. Then, the two legislative committees get together and argue over which house's versions of the different provisions are best, and produce something both houses can approve. I've worked in a legislature, and I've seen first hand the usefulness of this system. In short, we "hire" politicians for a job. A management job in society. Democracy as the "one person one vote for every issue" system only works in small towns and villages. Larger social structures and communities necessitate social management by representatives.

*****Note: none of this purports that it reflects how committees and legislatures DO operate, just how they should.

[Skunk]

In short, we "hire" politicians for a job. A management job in society.

Fair enough - but in normal society, we fire managers that do a bad job. And sometimes, the shareholders will vote to fire board members whose performance was less than satisfactory (a commercial 'recall' vote if you will).

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Skunk: quote: In short, we "hire" politicians for a job. A management job in society.

Fair enough - but in normal society, we fire managers that do a bad job. And sometimes, the shareholders will vote to fire board members whose performance was less than satisfactory (a commercial 'recall' vote if you will). [/QUOTE]Of course. Which is solved by term limits and the need for periodic elections. In a corporation, is in not the board of directors rather than the plant employees who fire corporate officers? The plant employees and other shareholders only get to have any say-so at the annual or special meetings. Annual meetings are the analog to the regular election. The board handles day-to-day affairs.

The board is the legislature in our analogy. Which has powers of impeachment for recalcitrance. Recall elections aren't about provable misdeeds, they are about whimsy of social political attitude change.

Oh, though the rules differ for each corporation, in most it takes a majority of voting stock to call a special meeting, and quorum requirements for the meeting are usually stricter -- 66% or more must be in attendance before any action can be taken. Quite strict.

Government is such a worthlessly slow behemoth anyway -- having ad hoc midstream elections could grind its functioning to a halt.

[ 09-03-2003, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]