Doesn't "Recall" Mean We Need a Parliamentary System?

[UTUSN]

Whoever the idealists in California who instituted the Recall provisions was, they probably were aiming for attaining *responsiveness* to the needs of the governed. The U.S. system has a certain *inflexibility* built-in----four (or whatever) year terms. There have been tons of threads here regarding what changes are needed to the Constitution, and how about the *parliamentary* system, along with only *one* house of Congress/legislatures based on population? The mess in California (the Recall, as opposed to Shrub's Enron and tax-cutting mess) is horrible and I regard it as overturning an election--------if you elected somebody for 4 yrs, you ought to be stuck with them.


(Whew! The Temporary rules are a struggle and appear to be *inflexible* and *constraining*--------and aimed at my *capitalization* and *flakiness* trademark characteristics.)

[ibegurpard]

1. I definitely agree about the recall provision.

It is the latest example of the citizen initiative process run amok. Special interests can do an end-run around the legislative process we have in place. The elected officials in states like Oregon won't make hard choices...they simply refer everything to the voters on the ballot.

[slackmaster]

2. CA government has been running amok since 1911???

It may be a little chaotic at times but I don't see this as rising to the level of amokness. The recall provisions were added to the state Constitution in 1911. The process has been used dozens of times, and until this week there has never been a serious court challenge to its constitutionality.

The irony of Gray Davis, who swore to uphold the state Constitution as written (not just the parts he likes) filing a challenge against part of it in the state Supreme Court seems to be lost on just about everyone. I count the move as one more blunder by Davis.

The elected officials in states like Oregon won't make hard choices...they simply refer everything to the voters on the ballot.

Oregon doesn't have term limits. California does. There is no way to "punish" Gray Davis in the next "goober"-natorial election because he won't be eligible to run.

[ibegurpard]

4. Oregon DID have term limits until they were overturned

a couple of years ago. However, I believe the governor is still term-limited.

[slackmaster]

5. Egad, you're correct - Thanks for the info

Chilling story at http://www.oregontermlimits.org/

[UTUSN]

3. In My Local Area

There was a ten years' battle over whether to build a convention center or just upgrade a civic center. Then after that, the battle went on to *where* to do the deed. There was a turnover of elected leaders, who made a *final* decision. Then the ones who had been turned *out* did a Referendum drive and succeeded. Getting the sigs sounds daunting, but once they get them, then the special election is held when *nobody* votes except the Recall/Referendum starters. So the elected officials were overruled and not allowed to perform their duties.

(Whew! Not using caps for emphasized words and surnames is a real identity-buster for me.)

[redeye]

7. You can use caps, methinks...

...just not in subject lines. Again, I'm not completely sure about it.

[Hanuman]

6. Are you serious???

"if you elected somebody for 4 yrs, you ought to be stuck with them."

And if there was a federal recall provision and someone started a movement to recall Chimpy- YOU WOULD HONORABLY REFRAIN FROM PARTICIPATING????!!!!!!


HAAA!!!!

So many DUers say exactly the same thing- but it just doesn't wash when the shoe's on the other foot.

[redeye]

8. I agree with you

I think that recall provisions are the epitome of democracy. If there were a federal recall provision and there were a petition against Bush, I'd proudly and gladly sign and encourage others to do the same.

[Brian Sweat]

9. It could mean that,

but you have to want it.

[Clete]

10. Unfortunately a tool for Democratic governance, the recall's

intention was to give the people some power in protecting their government by enabling them to recall an elected official who was unable or unwilling to do the job, someone like President Bush II. This tool instead has been used by unscrupulous right-wing politicians to further their own undemocratic agenda and I believe this recall started in the White House. Issa is nothing more than a convenient and timely patsy for them to be discarded after his usefullness is no longer relevant.

The neo-cons want to destroy California so they can have a pliable and stressed population by 2004 whose electoral votes would be the killer death blow to Democrats. We have to fight this every inch of the way.

[T_i_B]

11. Here in our parliamentary system in the UK

We have our own problems. Blair is performing appallingly at the moment but his massive parliamentary majority means that it is very difficult indeed to remove him. We Brits keep getting asked when are goi going to get rid of the poodle? but under our system that is easier said than done.

America already has a very good constitution indeed and if any changes are needed in this respect they are needed in CA only to put a lid on the recall and the infinite number of people who want to run for the governorship. I should also point out that a UK term of office is 5 years and the government can call a general election any time in this period, as Ted Heath did for instance in 1974 with the government being battered by the unions. (Heath lost to the Labour party in that election BTW)

[UTUSN]

12. A Parliament Would Allow a Changeover

when changed circumstances called for it. Plus shifting coalitions.

As for "being stuck with whomever for 4 years"----yeah, if we could recall Shrub, I sure *would*. But it does seem to lead to paralysis and economic waste. In my post about my local area, the minority from the past are still controlling was the theoretical office-holders do.

(As for the caps---yeah, SKINNER sez we can use it, like for emphasis, not "excessively".)

[Xithras]

13. There is only one problem with the California recall provision

The required numbers are too low. With 34 million people in this state, why were less than 900,000 signatures required to start the recall process? Someone needs to start a proposition drive to increase the required threshhold to AT LEAST 10% of the states population (or 3.4 million signatures). I'd like to see it even higher than that, but 10% would be easy to get past the voters and it would stop nonsense like were seeing now.

[Arkady]

14. "Legal, but....."

It seems that the recall movement is perfectly legal, based on the letter of the law.

Now- my fear is that this is going to lead to major long-term destabilization of the CA government. Until the recall law gets changed, I think EVERY CA governor from now on (Dem. or Rep.) is going to face recall drives during his/her term. This is going to become a standard weapon of a governor's opponents. Long-term, CA's government is in for some serious instability.

Again- nothing illegal seems to be going on, but the people of CA have to ask themselves if this is how they want their government to be.

[RB TexLa]

15. In California and everywhere else

I think this will create political destabilization in many places. Many states have recall provisions that are rarely used. I think the idea that put these into law was a Nixon Watergate situation by a governor or other state official. I doubt the people that wrote the laws ever envisioned them being used as pure politics. I know both Governors. Brown and Reagan had petitions for their recalls that didn't make it. Would seem logical for both as they were each controversial and very partisan. I think after the Florida mess, the Republicans now have the idea that no election is ever over. If you lose, simply begin the recall process. The problem with this is it could become very effective, many people don't care for any elected officials of any strip and would sign a petition a day.

Here in Texas we are of course facing similar tactics by the GOP. Everyone redistricts once every ten years, but now Tom DeLay and the new GOP majority in the legislature have decided to change that. Thankfully there are enough Democratic with backbone to say no. The worst thing is the total partisnness of it. The Democratic districts they want to get rid of include the most senior members of the delegation. Including Martin Frost who is in the Democratic leadership. Talk about idiocy, now I in no way like Tom DeLay but if we (Texas) are going to have conservative Republicans in the house and of course we are, I would prefer to have ones that are in the leadership and can at least bring home bacon, that way I get something out of them. One would think that Texas Republicans would think the same about helping Texas but it seems not.

I fear that we will continue to have to pay for special session and special session, again and again over all this. And California will have to pay for recall elections and higher interest on bonds forever.

We will move into a year round political cycle with no legal move off limits. This can be very dangerous, not only to the costs of state government to the people, but possibly to national security, with more Al Haigs screaming "I'm in charge." Image had the GOP done what it did in 2000 at the height the Cold War.

I think the only good that comes out of the ongoings with the recall is that now it appears as Darrel Issa has as much chance of getting to Sacramento as he does of holding the car keys at the GOP convention.

[Xithras]

16. Actually...

Every California governor for the last 30 years HAS faced a recall drive. They typically get no press because they're driven by fringe loons and typically don't gather more than a few thousand signatures. There are two differences this time around 1) Most Californians, even the ones who voted for him, really don't like Davis (he basically won on an "Everyone else sucks worse than me" platform). 2) The fringe loons had Issa's money.

The recall process isn't going away, and I have no doubt that future governors will face recall drives as well, but I seriously doubt that this will become a regular feature of California politics. If we push up the signature requirements as I suggested in my first post, it practically gurantees that these things will be reserved for governors who are really, truly evil.

[RB TexLa]

17. re: actually

I'm not from or in California. I would think that the ones against Brown and Reagan probably had a little steam behind them? Or not? That was as I understood it.

I certianly agree with you that the signature requirements should be greater. Maybe in the 20% to 15% range.

[robbedvoter]

18. We need our democracy back. The system was fine

until GOP-ers bought the media and got the cover they needed for every dirty trick in the world (impeachment, redistricting, recall etc). If you buy them, you are brainwashed.