What would legitimize the California recall?

[Shrek]

Poll question: What would legitimize the California recall?

Just trying to satisfy my curiosity. Over the last few weeks I've read a lot of posts denoting good reasons for opposing the recall.

But I wonder : are there any circumstances in which you would consider the recall election to be legitimate?

I ask because in theory it seems like a good idea to subject elected officials to the possibility of recall (it keeps them accountable and invests power in the electorate). But I'm not sure California's approach is the best one.

[Darranar]

1. Some combination...

The ballot campaign originating at the grass-roots, stricter rules for candidates, and, if the recall succeeds, and election between the Lt. Governer and the candidate who got the most votes.

[Snow]

2. There's some fairly old history on the recall device,

and I don't recall it (heheh, sorry) right now - it's been in the LA Times and dates from the Progressive Era (yes, there was such a time - didn't learn about it at school, did you?). But there originally was a sensible reason for allowing recalls. A local mayor and colleagues got recalled in a community a little south of downtown LA, for egregious corruption.

[Shrek]

3. I suspected as much

The California constitution has some pretty unambiguous language:

"Sufficiency of reason is not reviewable"

which leads me to believe that the drafters intended to allow a hair-trigger on the recall provision. But I can't help but believe that they'd have second thoughts if they could observe the current circus.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

8. It's a long story that I don't have time to get into

I'll come back later this evening..yes it was a progressive law due to the last time the robber barrons looted the state ..this time the robber barons co-opted it..kind of like the left learned to use lawsuits to their advantage and the right co-opted that by inventing the SLAPP suit...

[goobergunch]

9. Hiram Johnson is rolling in his grave right now (n/t)

[ma4t]

4. it is legimate by definition

Sorry to take a contrarian attitude here but the CA recall is legimate. I say this because it is being done in conformance to the pre-existing law governing the recall process.

Now, that doesn't mean that it is justified or that it makes any kind of sense at all. Frankly, I regard it as a monumental FUBAR; however, it is a legimate FUBAR. Arguing that it is illegimate requires that one contort all meaning out of the word.

[Darranar]

10. I agree with you in principle..

There are several problems, IMO, with the Californian approach:

1. Vast amounts of money wasted for this

2. Too many candidates for anyone to make an educated decision

3. A candidate can be elected without a majority vote

That's why I think that stricter rules should be neccesary for recalls.

[Justice]

5. % of Signatures Needed for Recall

Should Be Much Higher - 20% of the electorate. Recall should be only if there is significant voter support.

[arcane1]

6. thanks for the "some combination" choice!

hard to pick just one!

my combo: at LEAST 1 through 3!!

[Ediacara]

7. a combination of

gross misconduct and/or criminal activity would be needed for recalling the governor, then replacing him/her with his/her lt governor (assuming the lt governor is not also involved in the governor's recall-worthy problems).

[WilliamPitt]

11. The California constitution

Ruh roh.