What's the case AGAINST a presidential recall election?

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

We've already seen that impeachment doesn't equate to removal from office. This goof's approval rating is 29% and dropping! Yet, it's likelihood that a long, drawn out impeachment trial will either get filibustered to death or not obtain the necessary votes by our non-representative Congress. Ergo, why isn't there a push to amend the Constitution to include a presidential recall election? California demonstrated how swiftly action to remove Gov. Gray Davis from office can occur.

[rinsd]

1. Because amending the Constituion is difficult?

[Ninja Jordan]

2. It might cause the president to become preoccupied with a recall instead of doing his/her job.

[bottomofthehill]

3. Its a bad idea

Every President from here on out would spend more time fighting recall petitions than actually governing. The Gray Davis recall shows how a bad idea can get worse

[onenote]

4. so how would it work?

Would the recall only apply to the president or to the vice president as well? Would the normal line of succession apply or would there be a new election concurrent with the recall vote (as was the case in California). Would the recall vote be based on the electoral college system or just a straight popular vote? How many signatures would be needed to force a recall vote (in California it was 12% of the votes cast in the prior election -- applied to the Presidential election, that would be more than 14.5 signatures. How long would it take to verify those signatures? Would you have to have the requisite number of signatures in each state? What if the signature drive fell short in one state?

The California process took around 9 months from the beginning of the signature collection effort to the election. It would be infinitely more complex at the federal level and costly. Ultimately, you'd have a situation where the president was constantly campaigning nationwide, even in his/her second term.

Approval ratings, as measured by opinion polls, historically show wide swings in public sentiment towards a president. Almost every president over the past seventy years has had approval ratings drop below 50 percent at some point, although they often rebound. Sometimes a president has to take an action that isn't popular; I'd hate to inhibit that option by subjecting the president to the risk of a recall vote.

[SaveElmer]

5. So you think the recall of Davis for Arnold was a good thing?

nt

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

8. No. I'm saying...

...I'm not satisfied with the impeachment process, especially when it is equally lengthy and wasteful of taxpayer money AND doesn't necessarily result in the removal of BUSH = goof from office, if that wasn't clear. And it's not as if his popularity has fluctuated. He's now reached the rarified air of Harry Truman.

Come on! Wasn't Clinton's ability to govern impeded by the impeachment process. If these are the arguments against, they are weak.

With respect to a vote of no-confidece, as I've stated above, one way or another I seriously doubt it would get past our non-representative Congress.

[SaveElmer]

9. A Presidential recall procedure would be anarchy...

No President would be able to govern...and there is ZERO chance anything like this could be done before Bush left office anyway...

It is a very bad idea!

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

10. No president would be able to govern?

That smacks of hyperbole. As Sir Jeffrey has noted, other countries' leaders govern with a vote of no-confidence hanging over their heads. Further, the fact that this president would not be able to govern effectively is a good thing.

That it won't see the light of day during monkey boy's term wasn't my point. My question was why isn't there a push for a presidential recall election?

[SaveElmer]

13. We can't idiot proof the Presidency...

The fact that George Bush has abused the powers of his office does not mean we take away those powers...we simply elect a better leader...

Countries with a system that allows a vote of no confidence are parliamentary democracies...of which we are not one...

In those cases it is only the prime minister that is removed(resigns), the party remains in power...and a new leader is appointed by his party

Here we could be subject to full blown Presidential elections every 3 months...

It is a very poor idea!

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

15. If Bush is removed (resigns), the party remains in power.

Sorry, but you really are prone to hyperbole: "Here we could be subject to full blown Presidential elections every 3 months..."

Seriously, is that what we've learned about how things work here? In the eighteen U.S. states that today allow the recall of state officials, only two Governors have ever been successfully recalled. In 1921, North Dakota's Lynn J. Frazier and in 2003, California Governor Gray Davis were recalled.

[SaveElmer]

16. You are quite naive...

If you seriously think that the Republican Party would not try to recall every Democratic President elected, you are living under a rock...

State and Federal electoral politics are completely different animals...

Every President would be a permanent lame duck...

Our constitution as it is works quite well...

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

19. They are different animals because their constitutions are worded differently.

Again, what good is a constitution that doesn't hold water? And what exactly is stopping Republicans from impeaching every Democratic president now?

We all agree that the president has egregiously disregarded our Constitution. Thus, I think it's worth while investigating provisions that would allow for a presidential recall election. If constitutional provisions exist for impeachment, similarly, there could be provisions for removal.

[Freddie Stubbs]

18. There is no push because those with the means to push would not likely support the idea

[Sir Jeffrey]

6. Others in this thread have pointed out why it is a bad idea...

what we need instead is a no-confidence measure similar to the British model. Something that would allow the Congress to replace an unpopular/incompetent administration with members from the same party until the next direct election.

Otherwise we are stuck with an unresponsive and very dangerous administration until the next election.

[benddem]

7. As no. 1 implied

there is no provision in the constitution for a recall. Obviously California did have that provision in their constitution.

[Richardo]

11. Oh brother.

Can some of you at least TRY to look like you know how our government works?

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

12. Again, you (like others) imply our government works. n/t

[Richardo]

14. The Constitution works quite well, actually

And there's no provision for recall of a President in it.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

17. I'd never include this President and the Constitution in the same sentence.

If the President is allowed to ignore the Constitution, how can it possibly be effective?

[CRH]

20. If you don't have the votes for impeachment and conviction, 67%, ...

how can you get the votes needed to amend the constitution? The amounts are not dissimilar.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

22. rinsd, Freddie Stubbs and CRH

Though the Constitution has been amended a number of times and for lesser reasons (Prohibition twice), there's no denying that getting approval from this non-representative Congress would be viable.

Yet, as with the XVIII and XXI Amendments, the push to amend did not come from above. The push came from the people. And there won't be a push without first broaching the topic.

[rinsd]

24. When was the last time the Constitution was amended if its so easy?

It was in 1992. The 26th amendment was about something that wasn't controversial and it was the longest an amendment took to get ratified.

What you are talking about is severely altering the way our government operates and the checks and balances contained within the Constitution.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

25. Sorry, rinsd, I was agreeing with you. I misspoke when I said it's viable.

I've edited it to say that it would indeed be implausible.

[rinsd]

26. Whoops

No sweat :thumbsup:

[dansolo]

32. You are forgetting about 75% of the states' legislatures as well

[Initech]

21. Oh god, imagine if it were to happen, the media circus would increase 10 fold.

The one in CA was bad enough. We'd never hear the end of it.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

23. Good grief. I hope you're the only one who yields to the media. n/t

[Initech]

27. I'm saying it's a bad thing.

The one in California left us with a movie star as a governor (not to mention the whole thing was completely partisan and there was no justification for it whatsoever). We could someone way scarier than Bush if it were to happen.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

28. Scarier than Bush...? Hmmm... Let me think about that one--you've stumped me there. n/t

[Initech]

33. Easy one - Mitt Romney

[AshevilleGuy]

29. That pesky Constitution, again.

By the time we got such an amendment through, IF we ever did, the new president and VP would be in office. And if we have, by some miracle, Dems in the WH the repukes would use the new amendment against them.

I wish we did have such a parliamentary system, but it would change the whole character of our government and would not fly.

[MGKrebs]

30. Our form of democracy is somewhat experimental and

may need changes, but the problem here may not really be with the Constitution. It's with people and culture. We are facing an opposition party that has successfully intimidated the press; they have successfully undermined the value of science, facts, and critical thinking; and they have (perhaps inadvertently) dramatically elevated the influence of fundamentalist Christian belief on the government. These are all things the founding fathers warned against.

We are a victim of our own success. Many have become complacent and are no longer willing to participate in a meaningful way. I still hope that the pendulum will swing before much more damage is done, but it's going to take courageous people. There must be leaders willing to sacrifice what they have in order to advance the common good. Hell, some of US must be willing to sacrifice what we have. Hopefully, there are people who are now organizing their lives for this possible eventuality.

From a political standpoint, I think the solution lies more in opening up ballot access to more parties, and holding elections on weekends or making election day a holiday. I also think that Instant Runoff Voting, or Choice Voting, would be very helpful. People have to feel they have a voice, and more diverse candidates can do that. More parties would likely mean coalitions in Congress, which means less chance of complete domination by extremists.

From a cultural standpoint, we also need heroes there. Professors need to speak out for science. Editors must protect and defend the truth. Religous leaders must recognize that faith cannot be imposed. We must somehow learn to value our success not only by corporate profits, but by our poverty rate, and our infant mortality rate, and our literacy.

Anyway, too many people feel unaffected by the actions of the Idiot In Chief to want to do much about it. They still have a job, it's not their kid getting killed or maimed, their preacher says the alternative (a Democrat) is worse, and American Idol is on!

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

35. Very true. Sad but true, nonetheless... and remedies are imperative for these reasons.

I struggle mightily with our culture for the very reasons you note.

How can one argue that "our government works" when:

i. +40 million Americans lack health insurance because they are bad risks, underemployed, or not poor enough to qualify for Medicare.

ii. Our system is based upon an antiquated electoral college and congress that place too much power in the hands of the few; (a) Gore won the popular vote by 537,000 but can't win the electoral vote because of the simple fact that small states' electoral votes are more heavily weighted than those of large states (forget Florida--if 1 EV = 1 EV, then Gore would have won the electoral college, too), and (b) two Senators representing the few, with homogeneous populations and far fewer socioeconomic issues (WY) can cancel out two Senators representing a large, heterogeneous population with diverse and complex socioeconomic issues (IL).

iii. The Constitution works? If something can so willfully and egregiously be disregarded, it's broken and needs to be fixed (period!)

iv. We can "theoretically" waste time and money impeaching every president (I give you Clinton and now Bush) and effectively turn them into ineffectual lame ducks, yet,--good heavens!--let's not consider wasting time and money pursuing a vote of "no-confidence" or a recall election. And let's talk about checks and balances: since the president is not elected by the people but rather by the electoral college, the people (in the case of Bush, who handily lost the popular vote to Gore in the first place) damn well should be given the right to remove him from office. Relying upon our non-representative Congress (see item 2 above) to act is pure and utter folly. Under the present system, the voice of the people has been put on "mute."

Thanks MGK for your thoughtful comments.

[SaveElmer]

31. This is a thought experiment...nothing more...

It ain't gonna happen...

[Hekate]

34. The Constitution provides for that every 2, 4, and 6 years depending on the office

Those are the terms of House of Representatives, President, and Senate -- right? That's how we get to throw the bums out on a regular basis if enough voters decide to.

Articles of impeachment may be brought according to provisions in the Constitution. The Constitution does not provide for "recall elections."

Get to know the system we have and work with it, is my advice.

Hekate