But let's not forget the really big implication of recalling a standing governor. Within any state that has relatively easy recall laws, no governor is going to stand up and make many tough decisions.

So regardless of your opinion of milk-toast personality of Davis or enamorment with the tele-prompter reading skills of Schwarzenegger, this is just bad news for the governors of this country.

In fact, what really astounds me is that for all the aggregious acts commited by government leaders in our country, Davis' crimes are really non-existant. Why aren't the citizens of South Dakota trying to recall their former governor from the house for being charged with manslaughter? Maybe you can't recall a house rep, i don't know.

Posted by: Eric at October 2, 2024 11:07 AM

As I sat here thinking about why the recall is bad, I realized one other thing.

During the recall process, by which I mean the gathering of signatures, there was little public debate, little media scrutiny, little pro/con debate. Simply, it was one small group saying what it wanted to people, without active counter argument , and people agreeing with what they said.

This differs from a preplanned election because it is brought about, not by a representative of the people, but by a small fraction of the people. The governor has little recourse to defend him/herself until they are put on public trial - so to speak. This differs also from our impeachment proceedings which are brought about by elected (read accoutable) representatives who themselves can be voted out of office.

No, this recall is just a bad idea.

Posted by: Eric at October 2, 2024 01:49 PM

I am not a big fan of the recall concept. However, I would point out: people didn't have to sign the petitions, so it isn't like it was just a small group getting their way--the recall forces gathered something like 2 million signatures.

Still, the whole process is flawed, in my opinion.

Posted by: Steven at October 2, 2024 08:28 PM

So regardless of your opinion of milk-toast personality of Davis or enamorment with the tele-prompter reading skills of Schwarzenegger, this is just bad news for the governors of this country.

ahhhh but good for the citizens.

Posted by: Paul at October 2, 2024 08:55 PM

Eric, I believe from your tone you are genuine and not one of the whacky trolls that have been around of late.

So I'll try to show you how you missed the point.

There have been somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 recall attempts in California. All of them failed. Getting a few million people to put their name on the paper is not easy.

And Davis was such a bad governor that the opponents got almost double the number that nobody came close to getting in the past.

There was public debate during the signature gathering time. It made national news repeatedly. BUT... I'll give you the point. Let's say there was not enough public debate while the sigs were being gathered. Can you really tell me there has been a lack of debate in this election since then??? I have a sister in Cali and she tells me you simply can not turn on the radio for 5 minutes and not hear one side or the other.

You compare this to a "preplanned election" but you draw an inaccurate conclusion. There has been far more debate BECAUSE this was a recall. A record number of people tuned in for the candidates' debate. You simply can not say this produces a lack of debate.

You say the recall is a bad idea. (assuming you not not shilling for Davis ) Let's look at that.

Davis has been, by all accounts, a horrible governor. And the people in Cali decided they would rather a horrible Dem then a Republican in the last election. Fair enough. But after the election it came out that he had lied about the fiscal condition of the state. Not just painted a rosy picture, he out right told some whoppers. (if you want to call these opinions and not facts, stick with me and give me the point for a minute.)

So what is in the best interest of the citizenry? To have a process that is rarely used to correct egregious wrongdoings or to eliminate that ability and keep someone in office when they might do harm to the electorate?

I genuinely don't understand how people can object to a recall ELECTION. And I capped election for a reason. All we are doing is getting the people involved again. I don't see the problem with that.

If we had an abundance of recalls, I'd maybe get the point. So far we have had ONE.

I kinda like it in the whole scope of this "democracy" thing. I think we should recall a big name guy every few decades to keep the other ones on their toes. You know, that whole "bloodless revolution" thing. We should to it if for no other reason then it reminds the citizenry that we are in charge. (somewhat exaggerated for humor but the point I'm making is valid)

I LIKE when the citizens get involved in government by kicking out bad politicians. That is one of the things that makes us Americans.

Paul

Posted by: Paul at October 2, 2024 09:25 PM

Paul,

Fair comments and well-thought. And I appreciate you not considering me a troll. However, I would disagree that a recall is the answer.

btw - the actual required sigs is much less.

SIGNATURES REQUIRED - The main difference between qualifying a proposition and a recall is that a recall requires more signatures. While qualifying a proposed new law for the ballot requires valid signatures from 5 percent of the number of people who voted in the last gubernatorial election, qualifying a recall election requires signatures from 12 percent of the number of people who voted in the last election for the office being recalled. Recall proponents seeking to recall Davis need 897,158 signatures to get the measure on the ballot.
from: fox news story
And I can't verify that 2 million people were verified to sign, I know as of 7/31 there were about 1.3m verified. Nonetheless, that's a tiny % of the population.

897,158 / 138M is about 2% of the population. And its hardly a representative cross-population sampling.

Recalls also don't have to have a reason. From the sec of state in california "sufficiency of reason is not reviewable" Therefore, one can merely be disgruntled and have access to a modest amount of money (by special interest standards) to start a petition.

Recalls don't allow for any "cooling off" period. This recall period from start to finish is what, 4 months? If people are angry about a tax increase, sign a petition to recall the governor then realize 6 months later that the rate increase amounts to $1/month, they probably wouldn't have signed the petition. But the petition goes forward because things haven't had a chance to play themselves out.

Recalls don't allow long enough of a campaign period. 1.5 months? To elect a person to run a state? We take 18 months to elect a president.

Now, having said that, I do agree that enabling the citizenry with enough power to oust corrupt officials or lawbreakers is necessary. There are many alternatives to a state-wide election. Petition drives to put automatic bills before the legislature. Drives to force mid-cycle elections. Legislature enabled impeachements have been used on a federal level as we know.

And btw - we can't oust politicians just for lying. We couldn't really expect our politicians to be honest now can we? That kind of upsets the whole balance of nature thing. :)
~
~
~
~
~
~

Posted by: Eric at October 3, 2024 12:40 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:

Remember personal info?
YesNo
Comments: