NationStates Jolt Archive

Should the federal government be immune to these very special elections? Or should recall elections only be exclusive to the state level and the city level.

Personally I know that if recall elections were enabled for the federal government, people would gain more power...

Supposedly power is held by the people... Aka democracy. However, that could very well injure the efficiency of our government by way of public oppinion being changed with high frequency.

There are the up-sides and the down-sides...


Which ones out weigh the others?

After having a ring-side seat to the circus that was California's recall election... No. I don't think we should have them at the federal level, or rather, if we do, they should be made rather difficult to get going. Otherwise we'd have nothing but an endless series of recall elections because as soon as one party won the White House, the other would immediately launch a recall.

After having a ring-side seat to the circus that was California's recall election... No. I don't think we should have them at the federal level, or rather, if we do, they should be made rather difficult to get going. Otherwise we'd have nothing but an endless series of recall elections because as soon as one party won the White House, the other would immediately launch a recall.

Maybe a two-thirds vote from both the Senate and the House...

Maybe a two-thirds vote from both the Senate and the House...

Putting a recall election in the hands of the house and senate kinda defeats the purpose, doesnt it?

Exactly what I believe would be the main problem. The current requirements to have one proposed is a petition with at least 25% of the number of people who voted for the official in question...

Seems a little small to me.

*in relpy to nervun*

Maybe a two-thirds vote from both the Senate and the House...

if they could get those votes they would just impeach him.

Recall elections would become a delaying tactic. Don't like a president programs force him to campaign during the recall attempt.

Maybe a two-thirds vote from both the Senate and the House...

The senate and house take care of impeachments...

Putting a recall election in the hands of the house and senate kinda defeats the purpose, doesnt it?

I was thinking for the President, didn't even think of the Senate and House having recall votes. Ah, well, perhaps it's for the best. *Wanders off to fields he's more interested and better educated about*

I was thinking for the President, didn't even think of the Senate and House having recall votes. Ah, well, perhaps it's for the best. *Wanders off to fields he's more interested and better educated about*

Even if it is just for the pres, the point of a recall is the whole "Powah to da people!" thing, at least for the OP. So, if the Senate and House have the power to recall the pres, doesnt that defeat the point?


That, and everytime we had a majority in congress that wasnt the same party as the president, theyd call for a recall.

Absolutely. Governments need to be accountable to the people...


Supposedly power is held by the people... Aka democracy. However, that could very well injure the efficiency of our government by way of public oppinion being changed with high frequency.


If the government is actually accountable to the people, chances are they'll start listening to the interest of the people rather than the interests of those with large sums of money. Why? Well, if they don't, it's more likely they won't stay in office very long, yes?

Even if it is just for the pres, the point of a recall is the whole "Powah to da people!" thing, at least for the OP. So, if the Senate and House have the power to recall the pres, doesnt that defeat the point?


That, and everytime we had a majority in congress that wasnt the same party as the president, theyd call for a recall.

1. 2/3rds
2. I meant as in to bring it up to a recall vote by the people. I still think it's no great idea.

I'd prefer they didn't exist at all. Frankly, I can't think of anything more destructive of good government.

Politicians as it is spend too much time worrying about his reelection chances and not enough about the good of the electorate. If our elected officials have to worry about getting unseated anytime they do anything unpopular, all we'll EVER have is government by popularity poll - or to put it another way, the actual good will take a back seat to the perceived good. Which is a good way to destroy a polity.

We've seen over and over that the general populace is either too stupid or too selfish to be trusted with political power greater than the basic ballot box. Our elected representatives must be able to make unpopular decisions and have a chance to prove themselves right.

Allowing federal recall elections would have the same effect as reducing the presidential term length to one year (and accordingly increasing the term limit to 8).

Presidents wouldn't be able to accomplish any long-term goals because they'd be continually running their re-election campaigns.

A good system needs balance. Give the voters too much power and you have a government that's too worried about popularity. You'll have the President invade percieved enemy country X when the majority is convinced that enemy country X is bad only to be forced to make a hasty retreat when the majority tires of war soon after. You'll have costly programs started one day and ended the next.

Why? Because if politicians are constantly worried about being booted out once their popularity heads south, they'll be forced to ride every wave and follow every trend. They'll be forced to start programs when they (the programs) are popular and abandon them when the people lose interest.

The job of the government is to serve the people, which is hard to do when said government is forced to constantly change directions.

I'd prefer they didn't exist at all. Frankly, I can't think of anything more destructive of good government.

Politicians as it is spend too much time worrying about his reelection chances and not enough about the good of the electorate. If our elected officials have to worry about getting unseated anytime they do anything unpopular, all we'll EVER have is government by popularity poll - or to put it another way, the actual good will take a back seat to the perceived good. Which is a good way to destroy a polity.

We've seen over and over that the general populace is either too stupid or too selfish to be trusted with political power greater than the basic ballot box. Our elected representatives must be able to make unpopular decisions and have a chance to prove themselves right.
/thread

After having a ring-side seat to the circus that was California's recall election... No. I don't think we should have them at the federal level, or rather, if we do, they should be made rather difficult to get going. Otherwise we'd have nothing but an endless series of recall elections because as soon as one party won the White House, the other would immediately launch a recall.

I agree.

By the way, I think that recall elections are intrinsecally wrong. This because who's been elected doesn't act on a binding mandate. The sovereignity of the electors has been delegated to him; he's supposed to act freely in representing what he thinks it's best for the whole population (and not just the people who voted for him), and to answer of his actions to the electors at the end of his term, by bidding for a new term.

Otherwise we'd have nothing but an endless series of recall elections because as soon as one party won the White House, the other would immediately launch a recall.

Oh, and it would probably be every position too, not just rhe Presidency. Also, think about it, every time a politician made one little mistake, or mishandled one event (in the eyes of the media, who control public opinion) the people would rush to recall, just to try to make sure they didn't make a mistake at the voting booth.

I think that people are too capricious, and fickle for something like recall voting to be easily accessible. It is a nice thought though.

Recall elections should be limited to local government if at all, and should be time-consuming and expensive (i.e. petition requiring certain number of signatures --> districtwide referendum to determine whether recall election is held --> districtwide primary and final elections for new candidates) to discourage people from doing it over frivolities such as "the candidate banned/permitted gay marriage/abortion/teaching of creationism" and limiting it to important issues ("the candidate embezzled millions of dollars of taxpayer money, lied about it under oath, and is jailing everyone who disagrees with him"). At the federal level, I support some elements of the Constitution's original plan: the legislative branch that actually makes the decisions should not be an elected body, likewise executive and judicial officials other than the head of state. Recall elections in the federal government are at best a risky proposition, and the threat of recall elections can keep the federal government from taking necessary but unpopular moves that will benefit the country in the long term, so no, no recalls at the federal level.