I'm conflicted about the "Recall Scott Walker" movement in Wisconsin

[Reginald_Hobbes]

@CJJ

The only thing needed for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing.

Vote to recall Walker with a clear conscience, enthusiasm, and encouragement for others to do the same. I know I will.

Location: Chicago

[kenobi_65]

@Reginald_Hobbes

Hey, it’s Chicago. We’re very good at that sort of thing here.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Boyo_Jim

I’ll need to do a little research to get an accurate count. But I think there have already been 6 recall election for Republican state legislators, 3 for Democrats, and IIRC the Dems also filed papers for recall of 2 more Pubs at the same time they filed the papers on Walker.

If I have that count right, that makes 12 total.

Considering the shit that went down in Wisconsin last year, perhaps they were justified.

[BrotherCadfael]

I’m a Republican, approve of most of what I hear about Walker, and think the protesters who occupied MN’s capitol were a bunch of tools.

That said, the recall provision is and has been part of MN’s law for many years, and it is perfectly appropriate for Walker’s opponents to make use of it, if they can. If you support the recall, go ahead and sign.

[iamthewalrus_3]

I like the idea of recall elections.

Even after California’s turned into a circus, I think the basic concept is good. You elect someone to a given term, but if they fuck up enough that a bunch of people think it’s worth having a special election before the term is up, then let’s have a vote. The election interval should not be used as a “no accountability time limit”. Obviously, that has to be balanced with not wanting to have elections constantly. Someone elected with a slim majority shouldn’t constantly be put up for recall. I think you can handle that by, say, requiring some kind of supermajority (50+% to get elected, 55% to get recalled), and/or limiting recall elections to one per term, or one per year.

I think it’s interesting that you consider signing the petition even though you disagree with the recall to be supporting the concept of petitions. I don’t sign petitions unless I support them. I’m always surprised at how many people seem to sign any random petition that a signature-getter puts in front of them. Just because I agree with the system of petitions to add ballot measures doesn’t mean I agree with a particular petition or think it’s worth supporting to the point of a vote.

[appleciders]

@BrotherCadfael

I’m a Republican, approve of most of what I hear about Walker, and think the protesters who occupied MN’s capitol were a bunch of tools.

That said, the recall provision is and has been part of MN’s law for many years, and it is perfectly appropriate for Walker’s opponents to make use of it, if they can. If you support the recall, go ahead and sign.

Uh, Walker’s the governor of Wisconsin, not Minnesota.

[BrotherCadfael]

@appleciders

Uh, Walker’s the governor of Wisconsin, not Minnesota.

:smack:

[Mahaloth]

@Chronos

I think you’re mixing up the concepts of recall and impeachment. Impeachment is supposed to be used to get a criminal out of office (though of course in practice it ends up being largely political). Recall, though, isn’t designed that way: The people can recall a politician (if such is allowed for in the relevant rules) for whatever reason they choose. “He governed based on different policies than he ran on” is not good grounds for impeachment, but it’s perfectly fine for recall.

Perfectly stated and quite right. We don’t have it for President of the US, but many(all??) individual states have it for their governors and congressmen/women.

Michigan recalled a representative or senator on election day this year, first since 1983. Also over union positions.

[Folacin]

@Damuri_Ajashi

I might think senators should be elected by their state’s legislature and the president should be chosen by the electoral college because I think that it leads to less politicking and less gridlock but I still vote for senator and president when election day rolls around.

Instead we elect our president like we pick an American Idol.

At the risk of a hijack - you think having the state legislature would lead to <i>less</i> politicking? If it only takes convincing half+1 of the legislature to elect me Senator, I’m going to be politicking and promising like a son-of-a-gun to a much smaller set of people.

My probably shaky understanding is that most states were already direct electing their Senators (the Constitution just said the states would select, and the buck was passed), in large part due to the disgust at the corruption in the legislative pick method.

I don’t know what your state house is like, but mine (MO) often reminds me of Mos Eisley.

[kenobi_65]

@Folacin

I don’t know what your state house is like, but mine (MO) often reminds me of Mos Eisley.

And here you made it sound like you’re from Illinois, where we’ve made putting elected officials in prison the official state sport.

[That_Don_Guy]

Here are a couple of quotes on the subject:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

In other words, we put them in, and we have the right to take them back out.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

In other words, let’s not be too hasty.

Of course, the first is from the Declaration of Independence.

The second is from, er, the Declaration of Independence - in fact, it is the text that immediately follows the first quote.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Folacin

At the risk of a hijack - you think having the state legislature would lead to <i>less</i> politicking? If it only takes convincing half+1 of the legislature to elect me Senator, I’m going to be politicking and promising like a son-of-a-gun to a much smaller set of people.

My probably shaky understanding is that most states were already direct electing their Senators (the Constitution just said the states would select, and the buck was passed), in large part due to the disgust at the corruption in the legislative pick method.

I don’t know what your state house is like, but mine (MO) often reminds me of Mos Eisley.

No I haven’t thought much about it, I was just trying to draw some sort of analogy. That not voting in protest of a voting mechanic is ultimately counterproductive.

[Lord_Feldon]

@Mahaloth

Perfectly stated and quite right. We don’t have it for President of the US, but many(all??) individual states have it for their governors and congressmen/women.

Members of Congress can’t be recalled. They can only be removed by a two thirds vote of their house. (And not all states have it for governors. Ohio only allows the recall of certain local officeholders. Statewide officeholders (including the governor) and state legislators are safe until the ends of their terms.)

[Death_of_Rats]

@MandaJo

The bad thing would be if both sides starting using recalls so frequently that actual governing became impossible: if it gets to where elections don’t resolve anything, if everyone is always striving for a do-over instead of going forward, the system breaks down.

However, I think that in this case the very high standards to create a recall serve as a break on that.

The check to this is that to be a successful recall effort you need to either motivate voters who did not vote originally, but now see a dog they have in the fight or you have to flip a number of voters who origianlly voted for the guy in power by showing them that the need is greater then what ver they saw in him originally. that is harder then it sounds. Generally a Pol or Party has to become very hated by thier actions to get that kind of support. Scott Walker, may have managed that. Grey Davis did in CA.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

To be honest, I consider recall votes something that should be a viable option in almost every legal position across the country that is elected via popular vote. There is no reason that the general populous should be forced to put up with a terrible, corrupt politician who ran on lies and did everything short of committing crimes while in office for his full term when they’re already sick of him after a year.

The point of representative democracy is to represent the people, and when you no longer are doing that, there’s absolutely no reason for you to continue to hold a position of power. I mean, imagine if you get hired to do graphic design at a video game company, and you spend your time in the office playing flash games or, even better for the analogy, freelance work. Would it be unreasonable to fire you?

[UltraVires]

I’m with the others. Even if you don’t like the current rules, you play the game under these rules until you can get them changed. I’m personally against the initiative, referendum, and recall processes, but if them’s the rules of the game, then play ball.

[Simplicio]

@Folacin

At the risk of a hijack - you think having the state legislature would lead to <i>less</i> politicking? If it only takes convincing half+1 of the legislature to elect me Senator, I’m going to be politicking and promising like a son-of-a-gun to a much smaller set of people.

Yea, the idea of having state legislators pick Senators always seemed terrible. Since people seem far more invested in federal issues then state ones, the end result is that they’ll end up voting for their legislator based on who they want to go to the federal Senate, rather then who they think has the best ideas for state governance.

For example, in the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates, neither man was actually running for anything. They were trying to convince people to vote for their parties slate of state representitives so that they could get appointed to the Federal Senate and vote on slavery in other states. That a state legislature vote hangs primarily on what people think of issues in another state is obviously not a great idea.

The current system seems like a far better system.

[UltraVires]

@Simplicio

For example, in the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates, neither man was actually running for anything. They were trying to convince people to vote for their parties slate of state representitives so that they could get appointed to the Federal Senate and vote on slavery in other states. That a state legislature vote hangs primarily on what people think of issues in another state is obviously not a great idea.

In fairness, though, I believe that was the only time before or after, in the history of the country, that men actually ran for the Senate and used the legislators as slates of candidates.

The idea was to make Senators more isolated from the ebbs and flows of public opinion than members of the House. Some proposals called for Senators to have life appointments like SCOTUS judges. Further, the Senators would have the best interests of the individual states in mind to counterbalance the House’s representation of the people as a whole.

Whether you agree or disagree, I think that idea generally worked until the adoption of the 17th amendment.

[BigT]

@jtgain

Whether you agree or disagree, I think that idea generally worked until the adoption of the 17th amendment.

If it was working, why did we change it?

[Zoe]

Boyo Jim, it’s good to see someone taking a single vote so seriously.

Is there a more important question than what is the best thing for Wisconsin?

I have been following this somewhat closely, btw. It’s been amazing to watch from a distance. Do you thing that Wisconsin’s citizens have encouraged any of the 99% movement?