Why is the California recall considered undemocratic by many here?

[ryharrin]

I agree that it sucks that we might lose the governership of the largest state. But is the recall election not part of the california constitution? If the constitution was democratically ratified, doesn't that make all the provisions in it democratic? What is more democratic than being able to hold our representatives accountable? Aren't there a lot of people here saying that it is wonderful that all it takes to replace Blair is a vote of no confidence?

[lazarus]

1. The problem

is that the recall effort was started by and funded by one man, an extreme right wing car thief who has failed in his attempts to be elected governor. That's all. If it weren't for that one man, there wouldn't be a recall right now.

[ryharrin]

4. If it weren't for that one man, along with 900,000 other people

who signed petitions you mean, right? Isn't that the way the thing is supposed to work? I agree that it would be better if this was a grassroots thing (also a whole lot more likely to succeed), but it seems like this is still the way it's supposed to work.

[Iris]

12. part of what the car thief funded

was the services of a professional signature collecting firm.

[DieboldMustDie]

15. 900,000 people...

is less than 3% of California's population.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

24. This is the point: less than 3%

of the population should NOT be able to initiate a VERY expensive and divise recall. Today it was reported that the recall will cost the state not $35 million, as originally thought, but something closer to $76 million. Seems like a major waste of time to me. I'm not crazy about Davis, but does anyone think we are going to be better off after this circus?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

22. one very wealthy repug can pay outofstaters to fly in and collect sigs

to outs an elected official so that he can buy the seat that he couldn't get elected to...you are kidding with this question right?

[Clete]

38. Maybe we should circulate a petition asking

that Issa and the authors of the recall petition pay for the election out of their own pockets. Could it be done? Hell, I'd sit outside my local Wal-Mart and K-Mart getting those signatures.

[ParanoidPat]

45. Obviously you don't live here or you would be aware.....

....of how the signatures were fraudulently obtained in many cases!
First, the signature gatherers are supposed to be California residents, not people bussed in from other states who illegally put down the hotel address as their 'legal' California residence.
Second, many people were told the petitions they were signing were for something altogether different from a recall petition.
There are other reasons as well but somehow I don't think you would really care to know! :(

[slackmaster]

48. Can you point me to hard evidence that non-residents were employed?

I've read and heard allegations that people were brought in from out of state but have not seen anything concrete to support them.

I've gathered petitions before. Gatherers have to sign an affidavit that they are CA residents and there is a possible criminal penalty for a misstatement. I'll believe the allegations when I start reading about petitioners going to jail.

[Maple]

2. You already have a recall process

It's known as an election.

Popping people in and out of office as it suits you in between those times just costs money, and keeps everything in a constant upheaval.

Blair can be ousted by his caucus...but it would take something extreme to do it as you can see....and the govt itself wouldn't go.

It would be like replacing Davis with another Democrat if Davis did something criminal and resigned, or became ill.

[Pepperbelly]

3. because with this recall, it amounts to just tossing aside an election tha

is not even a year old.

[ryharrin]

6. So what?

If the recall passes, then it'll show that the people weren't too happy with the way that election ended up. I'd have been pretty happy if we could've recalled Bush any one of his numerous lies.

[Pepperbelly]

7. nope ... what it will ...

show is what one determined wingnut with beaucoup money, no ethics and a contempt for democratic process can do to manipulate the legal/consumer processes.

It is a perversion of democracy, not an adjunct.

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

44. have you signed the tom delay recall petition yet?

208 signatures in the first three days

Damn, there's a whole lot of perversion going around these days. :tinfoilhat:

JC

[Rex]

30. What people? The 3% that signed the recall petition?

Should 3% of the people get to decide on the outcome? Sounds like a repukes wet dream IMO. :eyes:

[redeye]

34. They don't...

...50% of the voters do.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. It is part of the Cali Constitution but

It was meant for Governors who were corrupt, and used
Cronyism, kind of like Shrub... not for an unpopular
governor who was played like a fool by Enron et al, as
found by the FERC.

It was also funded by Congressman Issa, a RIGHT WING
extremist who has zero hopes of winning the election
in an open, REGULAR election... and to be quite honest
I am sure it is also an attempt by the WH to take over
the state so they can game the elections.... I would
not be too shocked, if they succeeded, if the Bluest
of Blue states suddently went Red, if you get my drift.

[Generic Other]

33. And if that happens...

We all go red for 4 fucking more years. California has a lot of electoral votes. And Bush needs all he can get. Whether he has to cheat or not.

Any California Democrat who doesn't see that Bush is gleeful at the prospect of ousting Davis is a fool. I am choosing to believe Californians have a lot more sense than to be taken once again by Enron, Cheney and Issa.

[slackmaster]

47. Have you read that section of the California Constitut ion?

"CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL


SEC. 14. (a) Recall of a state officer is initiated by delivering
to the Secretary of State a petition alleging reason for recall.
Sufficiency of reason is not reviewable." (Emphasis added.)

[ibegurpard]

8. This is a perversion of the ballot initiative process

Special interests have found that they can do end-runs to get what they want by funding ballot initiatives (and in this case, recalls) and spending a LOT of money to misinform voters who don't have the time or inclination to study the issues as closely as is needed.

[gulliver]

9. Fallacy. Equivocal use of term democratic.

"If the constitution was democratically(1) ratified, doesn't that make all the provisions in it democratic(2)?"

Meaning (1) Created through a democratic process. (2) Tending to promote democracy. These are two different things.

It is very easy for any process or person to do something self-defeating. California has a bug in their "democracy" code. It wasn't noticed because there was no one low enough to try to exploit it until now.

California's law depends on civic mindedness. That's like leaving your car door open and the keys in. Some scum bucket like Republican Issa will just drive away with your state.

Perhaps the recall signatures should have to be counted only in proportion to the party affiliation. This petition, probably has virtually all Republican signatures. That's broken.

[charlie]

10. One of the reasons

is because the way the recall works, it's enormously stacked against the incumbent.

The ballot is two-part.

The first is a referendum on the recall. If 51% vote in favor, Davis is out.

The second is a list of candidates. Davis will not appear on this list. If recall is approved, the candidate with the most votes wins.

So, this can happen -- Davis can be forced out with a 49% vote in his favor (51% for recall) and be replaced with someone with a plurality of the contender vote. If there are enough candidates, it can be as lopsided as 49% - 10% and the 10 percenter will be the new governor.

[SeattleDem]

17. that's despicable

I knew it was a two-stage process, but I didn't think about the math!

that's disgusting that Davis could win 49% of the "vote" but someone with a simple plurality of the 200+ names on the ballot will become the next governor.

Doesn't sound the least bit Democratic to me!

on edit: the "winner" should have to get enough votes to exceed the number of votes AGAINST the recall.

That is, if Davis gets 49% against the recall, then in the next phase, only if someone gets 49.1% or higher, should they be governor. If no one gets that, Davis stays. THAT'S how the plurality issue should work.

[charlie]

18. Yeah

Kinda explains why there's such a gold-rush stampede to get on the ballot, doesn't it? It's a once-in-a-lifetime chance to preside over a state bigger and wealthier than most countries, with minimal investment and a ridiculously low vote threshold.

[Walt Starr]

27. The math gets much worse with hundreds of candidates

It is quite conceivable right now that with so mmany potential candidates on the ballot, they will require two punch cards creating a counting nightmare. If more than 300 candidates end up on the ballot, they'll need two punch cards. Problem is, punch cards are all the same so counting is not going to work right and there is a guarantee that the counters somewhere are going to screw it up.

It is also quite conceivable that with so many candidates, less than 100,000 people will end up deciding who the next governor of California is.

With 350 possible candidates, less that 3 % of the population of California will have decided to let less than a tenth of a percent of the population decide who is governor.

How is that democratic?

[mitchtv]

11. Davis is the only one who needs 50% or more to win

it's concievable for the pukes to win the job with 30% even if Davis gets 49% how DEMOCRATIC IS THAT?
Davis 49%
issa 20%
Riordan 31%
WINNER --- Riordan

Winner will
most likely will get less considering the menagerie running

[not systems]

13. because it is

Nine months ago I voted for Davis as did
a majority of CA voters.

Now with the signatures of 12.5% of the
total voters many collected at the cost of
$1 each, my vote is nullified.

This is undemocratic.

Blair is not elected directly but by the party
he represents. What does that have to do with
the CA governer?

Nothing that I can see, Charles Taylor is going to
leave Liberia by the August 11 maybe Bush could
do the same. The logic of this is at least as strong
as your Blair, Davis comparison.

[StopThief]

14. Because everybody knows that the only reason. . .

the recall exists in the California Constitution is because Rove was able to develop a time machine and go back to 1911 (or is it 1913) and get it put there. If it were not for him, none of this would be happening right now.

[robbedvoter]

16. Because the sore losers GOP started it the day they lost

the election as a dirty trick to subvert it (impeachment, selection, recall, paperless voting machines, disinformation - some of the GOP methods). It does not stem out of Californians need to be better represented, but out of bushco need to have a foothold in California for its 33 electoral votes. Whatever the outcome it cheapens the entire electoral system, bedides being ridiculously stacked: 49% Californians voting against the recall can be nullified by10% voting for Larry Flynt (i used the best case scenario here)

[JackSwift]

19. Because it rejects all democratic principles

As others have pointed out, Davis won election less than a year ago by 47 percent of the vote in a general election.

In a special election, which will have an especially low turnout, he can be voted out of office by a number of voters that is a small fraction of the number that elected him. So Gray Davis got 3,533,490 votes in Nov. 2002. His chief opponent got 350,000 less votes, namely 3,169,801, and various others got about 600,000 combined votes. Now to start with, less than a third of the people who voted against Davis in the general election get to call for another vote? That is undemocratic. Next, if only a million people vote in the recall, which is entirely possible due to it being a special election, about half a million people can oust someone who got 3.5 million votes in a general election. That is undemocratic. Remember, the principle of democracy is that the majority rules. Then, to top all that off, there may be as many as 250 people on the ballot. So someone with as little as 50,000 votes can be our new governor, replacing someone who got 3.5 million votes. And that person could be Larry Flynt, the pornographer, or a recent high school graduate, both of whom are among the 250 people who have taken out papers.

So yeah, its undemocratic.

[Democat]

20. The law is 100 years old and out of date

Just because it's in the constitution doesn't mean that it should be.

Think about some of the laws that the Supreme Court has overturned over the years or the parts of the U.S. constitution that have been changed.

This is a right wing attempt to overthrow a democratically elected leader using an out of date loophole in the state constitution and a lot of money.

[leesa]

21. Because it has been constructed by the Republican/Corporate Parties

The set up the deregulation plan via Wilson. Ken Lay and buddies exploit the known flaws in the plan and make a killing in an energy fraud. Cheney and Bush protect them through the heat. The whore media lets it drop like a stone, but makes certain on the way down to humiliate Davis with the story of him 'overreacting' while trying to protect his state during one of the bogus terrorist warnings. They mocked and derided him for something he was supposed to do in light of what the administration had said the warnings were about.

[PurityOfEssence]

23. spirit of the law versus letter of the law

By the strict letter of the law, it's legal, but by what the law's meant to do, it's anti-democratic.

Huh?

We are a sick society, based upon the glorification of what you can get away with. Hence, people literally think that you're not a criminal unless convicted of a crime. This is ridiculous; by the time you've been accused and convicted, you've probably long since been a skunk.

The inherent sense of the law is that we can recall if there's some kind of extreme case of criminality, incompetence or inability to perform the job. That's different than "we don't think you're doing a very good job". Beyond all that, IT'S AN ASSUMPTION OF DEMOCRACY THAT ELECTIONS ARE TO STAND. Impeachments or recalls are only in the face of extreme nightmarish situations, which this does not rise to by any stretch of the imagination.

To now spend lots of money, disrupt the state's business at a time of extreme crisis and hold the world ransom for personal ambition is despicable.

It's legal to sue someone for something, then sue them again, then sue them again and use your money to destroy someone (this was Roy Cohn's favorite trick) but it's ruinous. Sure, a libertarian would say that if the suits are spurious and you can countersue and get damages, but if you don't have the wherewithal, you can be easily destroyed. Your career will be ruined by virulent types with deeper pockets. That's what's going on here: Issa paid people to get signatures. Sure, it's legal, but it's mor than just sneaky: the assumption one has when seeing a petitioner is that he/she truly believes, and it's only fairminded as a fellow human to at least listen to that which stems from honorable fervor. It's different when it's a buck-a-schmuck fuck just making spare change.

Here's a real eye opener: petitions are just to get something on the ballot for consideration; this is to put something on the ballot to reverse an election without a full recall. Okay, so it's not misrepresentation per se, but it sure as hell isn't what it SEEMS like on the surface. (Hey Junior never said flat-out that Saddam blew up the WTC, but somehow 72% of the people still think he did; that's deception.)

This is bullying by people who inherently don't believe in democracy: Republicans. They've determined that they are right, and hence are entitled to their desires and beholden to no one.

Yes, there's less rancor in Washington these days, but only because the monarchists have bludgeoned their way into control.

Would Republicans have ever allowed a Democratic President to have an Attorney General as correspondingly liberal as Ashcroft is conservative? Never. How dare you ask.

It's legal to badger and harass to a certain degree, but it's anti-social. Legal schmegal, this is bullshit. They want to wear us down by reminding us that unless they get their way, they will sue, thwart, obstruct, ratfuck, impeach, hound, bellyache, threaten and whatever else their divine right spurs them to do. Fuck them; this is supremely anti-democratic.

[MaverickX]

25. constitutionalism doesn't necessarily promote democracy..

This recall allows a minority of voters to remove an elected official from office. This doesn't seem very democratic to me. If 48% of the voters put Davis in office 48% of the voters should be required to remove him. California doing this makes me question if they're behaving democratically.

[Mairead]

26. Because a lot of people here aren't actually in favor of democracy

[salin]

28. I disagree - the issue of plurality above

demonstrates that this process is not democratic.

Not to mention that this sets the precedence (when considering 2 statehouses who are trying to throw out redistricting to redistrict again... and another state (Wisc) where the idea of recall is starting to be pushed as well) - that seems to be the new direction of some in the GOP - that if you don't like election results - just overturn 'em.

Perhaps each of the above situations is unique and it is not a concerted and coordinated effort of the RNC - but if it is- then they are indeed the party that is Anti-Democracy.

[Mairead]

40. Why should someone incompetent be able to keep their job?

If people think that Davis is doing a fine job, then they'll vote to not sack him. Why isn't that democratic?

[jagguy]

29. because they don't like it

some of us learn new words and like to use them

[Starpass]

31. Fuck "democratic"---the republicans are fucking the concept constantly

I'm more to the point. If CA goes to a repuke then I'll gaurantee you that CA will go "red" in '04-----remember Jeb and Florida. In other words, it gives them the power to "purge" the voter rolls, put police 'check points' in key locatins, etc. just like Florida. AND, if the people see CA fall in October they will feel that the Dems still are as dead as the '02 elections and will either vote repuke or not bother voting. I'm look at saving democracy and anything that can be done to stop these unholy facists, I'm for.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

43. Not with a Dem secretary of state, a Dem senate and a DEM assembly

You can't compare Florida with California. There is NO comparison on the structure of state seats.

[SammyWinstonJack]

32. Surely you jest right?

Many here has given the correct analysis of the situation, so I won't bother commenting on it! Accept to say, again surely you jest!

[fabius]

35. I think it's great!

Not a big fan of Davis anyhow. He's basically a DLC type corporate stooge. (OK I don't live in CA)

Also it may put the fear of God in the stupid legislators that approved the energy deregulation system. It'll put the fear of the voters into Davis. Can't see any harm in it.

Best case, Davis loses, Arianna or a Green candidate wins. What a hoot!

Middle case, Davis wins recall by a slim margin, as people realize all the Repugnants are worse.

Worst case, Repug stooge wins and screws up the state worse than it is. Repugs look worse than Davis by fall of '04.

Doesn't look all that bad in any case. Put the fear of voters into the Bushco and corporate stooges everywhere.

[fabius]

36. Recall...

A lot of Western states have the recall. (Oregon and Arizona at least, where I've lived). It was a feature of the progressive era to get rid of corrupt pols and keep them responsive.

This is the first time it's been used in recent memory against a sitting gov. He would have to be really unpopular for it to succeed. Well, heck, he is! Let's see what happens.

Love it or hate it the recall is a democratic process. Wouldn't you like to recall Bush right now?

[MaverickX]

37. get real...

If Davis is removed and the Dems don't run anyone I can guarantee the new governor will be a Republican. However, opposing the recall isn't about my love for Davis or about me wanting Dems to win, it's about principle. Minority of voters removing an elected official that a majority approved sets a dangerous precedent.

[devarsi]

39. Worst Case?

A Repuke takes California, California is forced into the Red Zone, the country lurches further to the right, Bush stages another bogus win, four more years of Bush, the country goes into a police state, Patriot Acts #2 and #3 pass, the Homeland Security Police get the IP addresses of all of us on DU, INCLUDING YOU, and we are all Padillad (in ref to Jose Padilla).

You end up in a black hole on an unnamed military base, and you are never heard from again.

THATS the worst case scenario. :-)

[rman]

41. then why not recall all governers all the time?

if it's that great.

[ParanoidPat]

46. That's easy for someone who doesn't live here to say.....

....just remember the old saying, "as California goes, so goes the nation. :(
I hope you're still laughing afterwards. :evilfrown:

[bleedingheart]

42. Elections cost money..so the Repukes who started this

recall are spending millions needlessly on a recall instead of spending that money on the citizens of CA.