The Case For A National Recall Election (moved from ATSNN)

The article makes a case for constitutional provision to allow for a national recall election to replace a sitting President when his popularity declines below a defined benchmark. It represents that this would make the President more responsive to the people and that it would reduce government stagnation by removing "lame duck" office holders.



Without any consideration of the current President, since this will never apply him, this seems like a reasonable idea. A similar method of removing unpopular Prime Ministers seems to work in countries with a parliamentary form of government. Why should U.S. citizens have to tolerate an unpopular and ineffective leader for 4 years?

I hope the discussion can stay non-partisan.

[edit on 7-12-2005 by df1]

True so true...

lame ducks are so lame... and invincible... especially since they can mess things up so bad that even THERE OWN PARTY doesn't want the following election (messes made before an election, frequently get blamed upon the future ruling party)
so essentially... i dont think the republicans care about winning in 2008. It would just force them to be the cleaning crew for the mess we are in. There is no glory or thanks in that...
no good deed goes unpunished.

This is an utterly ridiculous idea. It would take a Constitutional Amendment to accomplish and would make Presidents subject to the whim of the public, which is exactly what the framers sought to avoid. Good, effective leadership does not change course with every poll. If it happens, it would be the worst thing for the nation. I doubt that it would ever fly.

It is ridiculous and would never work. Anyway, who'd do the voting? The President is elected by an electoral college, not the people...

...allow for a national recall election to replace a sitting President when his popularity declines below a defined benchmark.

The LAST thing we ever need is a President governing based solely upon poll results. Not to mention the headache/expense involved in the runup to a nationwide recall election. Every 4 years is plenty. Please. No more often.

The LAST thing we ever need is a President governing based solely upon poll results.

We already had one, his name was Clinton, and his poll numbers were worse than Bush's are now early in his Presidency during the Hillarycare debacle. If this was in place then, he'd have been out in less than 2 years instead of serving 8.

Granted that a number of details would need to be worked out to make this recall idea work, however the speed at which modern society moves, it does not make sense to allow a impotent leader to continue in office for 4 years when that leader isn't getting the job done. Even if no President is ever recalled, perhaps just having the mechanics in place to recall would induce candidates to be more responsive to the people and more honest with the campaign promises they make before taking office.
.

...OR maybe it would be a good idea for more people to pay attention to who the proposed governing individuals are prior to election time rather than count on some obsure "Nielsen Rating" criterion for determining a recall election. You elect 'em, you get 'em. For four years. Barring excessive malfiesance where there are other remedies.

Who's to say whether or not the approval numbers are even valid or if they include all the actual voters? If you want a say, vote. I sure don't want any off-the-wall random polling making a determination like that. You can skew the results of any poll based upon the questions you ask, or the way you ask them. If individual states want to do that for their state offices, fine. But not for national office. Remember, we're not a democracy; never have been, were never supposed to be. We're a representative republic.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
It is ridiculous and would never work. Anyway, who'd do the voting? The President is elected by an electoral college, not the people...

The constitution should be ammended to give 20-30 bonus electoral votes to whoever wins the popular election so that we can assure that no president who looses the popular election will ever be able to win the electoral vote again.

We already had one, his name was Clinton, and his poll numbers were worse than Bush's are now early in his Presidency during the Hillarycare debacle. If this was in place then, he'd have been out in less than 2 years instead of serving 8.

Throughout Clinton's term he was constantly assaulted by political assasination attempts from republicans. If Bush got half as much scrutiny as Clinton he would have been impeached by now and hung for treason. For all of Clinton's shortcomings at least he wasn't a traitor to this country. The Bush whitehouse on the other hand needs to be investigated for their role in the September 11th attacks and brought to justice.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
This is an utterly ridiculous idea. It would take a Constitutional Amendment to accomplish and would make Presidents subject to the whim of the public, which is exactly what the framers sought to avoid. Good, effective leadership does not change course with every poll. If it happens, it would be the worst thing for the nation. I doubt that it would ever fly.

I have to admit, I agree with Grady on this. Calling for a nationwide recall election based on poll numbers would make our country run by mob rule. 4 year terms and a 2 term limit is good enough as it is.

[edit on 7-12-2005 by ShakyaHeir]

Originally posted by ShakyaHeir
The constitution should be ammended to give 20-30 bonus electoral votes to whoever wins the popular election so that we can assure that no president who looses the popular election will ever be able to win the electoral vote again.

If not some kind of bonus like that, then at least take the option out of the election. Why make the public feel like we make a difference, when even the presidential election is little more than a glorified public opinion poll?

...even the presidential election is little more than a glorified public opinion poll?

Yes that's exactly what it is. What else should it be, but a legal, binding, authorized view [hence "glorified"] of the public's opinion?

This idea is about as ridiculous as letting a private company literally own and tabulate your votes in an election without having to reveal digital source codes or provide any record of those votes.
Read Me

...and of course that is an excellent point. Even if there's nothing at all shady with the process, the mere appearance of impropriety needs to be eliminated. Of course, this is not a new phenomenon. My dad told me stories about ripping up ballots back in the '30s. And of course, dead people have elected many a candidate. And don't forget Joe Kennedy's famous "I'm not paying for a landslide" comment.

Same as it ever was.

Originally posted by yeahright
What else should it be, but a legal, binding, authorized view [hence "glorified"] of the public's opinion?

It may well be legal and authorized, but there's definitely nothing binding about it. In theory, a presidential candidate could receive none of the popular vote and still get elected president. Granted, the electoral college would get hell for that, but it's still entirely possible.

The public opinion does not matter in the presidential elections. Senate, Congress, state/local elections, those are where the public opinion counts, not at the president. The framers of the constitution intentionally made the president elected by the electoral college and not by the public. At that time, they felt the general public didn't have the resources to know enough about what was going on in the political world to be able to make an informed decision.

Please correct me if I'm wrong--I'd dearly love to be wrong about this. But--and I don't mean this in a cynical "drop in the bucket" sense--I honestly don't see how me voting for a president makes any difference whatsoever, other than letting one candidate feel better about themselves. I can do that on a CNN poll.

No, twitchy, it is ridiculous.
Why?
Which official polling service or organization you going to use to obtain that "historical benchmark of 40 percent" so as to faciliate that national recall?

The latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll finds that only 37 percent of Americans think he's doing a good job....

Dec. 7: 45%, down from 48%
Enie Meanie Minie Mo.....







seekerof

[edit on 7-12-2005 by Seekerof]

yup, that works so well in europe. spain had a situation like this. they got bombed by terrorists, lost alot of lives, a new government almost immediately took over by demand of the people and caved in to the terrorists. now, the ETA, another terrorist organization, has learned from the past and is trying to accomplish the same thing that al qaieda was able to do.

good plan folks.

the whole reason for the way our government is set up is to keep things of this nature from occuring. if our presidents held office at the whim of polls, nothing would ever get accomplished. ever.

This is supposed to be a place for news articles, not presentation of one's own politcal ideas.


The idea of an in-term recall is laughable. You can't remove a president from office merely because he is unpopular. Popularity isn't much of a measure of anything. The United States is a republic, not a mobocracy.