Thread: Scott Walker Recall Election Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023028
Posted by Moran (# 14195) on
:
I am surprised this election has not received more attention in many places as it is a big deal here and a lot of people think it will be an indicator of what might happen during the National election later this year so I am interested to see if any one has followed it and if they have any comments because from my perspective it is hard to argue with all his balanced budget with no new taxes arguments but I immagine there are people here who will so please and thank you.
http://www.salon.com/2012/04/29/whos_better_to_beat_scott_walker/singleton/
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
I'm aware of the recall (not something practised this side of the pond) but only though visits to the freethoughtblogs site where you can find plenty of rational (and possibly right) argument for his recall.
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
Moran - please consider using punctuation. I lost my breath reading your post and I wasn't even reading it aloud.
I don't know much about this, alas. I've heard of SW, of course, and I've certainly been involved in recall elections before, so I'll be interested to learn more.
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
Gosh, I thought this was about Scott Walker the frontman of the Walker Brothers: <wanders off singing> The sun ain't gonna shine any more...
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on
:
Hundreds of thousands of people in Wisconsin came out in the bitter, snowy cold for days on end to protest some of Scott Walker's end runs around the law to put his far left policies into place. It was covered in the media.
But, if a person does not watch television, s/he might have missed it. Not that we should all be glued to our television sets. I missed a big political announcement in my city just this week because I was having fun entertaining an out of town guest.
However, Scott Walker is a good example of the Tea Party run amok (what's that you say? redundancy?? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
The recall effort is not getting the same coverage as his original dismantling of many Wisconsin policies, but I'm glad that enough signatures were secured to demand the recall.
Walker is no friend to the working class, teachers (and other public employees)and women.
And some <ah-hem> "irregularities" were discovered after the fact when he held a lesser office.
Oh, and he is supported by the super far right billionaire Koch Brothers--that says a lot.
sabine
[ 30. April 2012, 13:41: Message edited by: sabine ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
Hundreds of thousands of people in Wisconsin came out in the bitter, snowy cold for days on end to protest some of Scott Walker's end runs around the law to put his far left policies into place. It was covered in the media.
You mean far right, I believe... as the rest of your post details.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
Scott Walker may wind up being the last high profile victim of Big Union Money before they finally die off for good.
Public sector unions are no friend of the taxpayer.
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
Hundreds of thousands of people in Wisconsin came out in the bitter, snowy cold for days on end to protest some of Scott Walker's end runs around the law to put his far left policies into place. It was covered in the media.
You mean far right, I believe... as the rest of your post details.
OMG, yes!! I meant far right. Yikes!!
Thanks for catching that, cliffdweller.
sabine
[ 30. April 2012, 13:48: Message edited by: sabine ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Scott Walker may wind up being the last high profile victim of Big Union Money before they finally die off for good.
Public sector unions are no friend of the taxpayer.
Huh.
I believe Walker is a living hyperbole-- the living embodiment of the ultimate end result of the current GOP agenda. Precisely because he is a slippery slope argument run amok, he demonstrates vividly precisely what is wrong with current GOP extremism.
In so doing, he may end up being the best Democratic campaign ad imaginable.
Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Scott Walker may wind up being the last high profile victim of Big Union Money before they finally die off for good.
Public sector unions are no friend of the taxpayer.
So we can have big corporation money instead??
Whats good for the goose, and all...
And how does getting rid of union money square with Citizen's United anyway??
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
From what I've gathered thus far, it seems the root of the problem is that some union leaders are upset that teachers no longer have to buy health insurance from an insurance company controlled by the union.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Scott Walker may wind up being the last high profile victim of Big Union Money before they finally die off for good.
Public sector unions are no friend of the taxpayer.
Yes, they frustrate free enterprise by making it difficult to ship all those jobs to India or China to create "value" for the shareholders. Damn them anyway!
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Scott Walker may wind up being the last high profile victim of Big Union Money before they finally die off for good.
Public sector unions are no friend of the taxpayer.
Yes, they frustrate free enterprise by making it difficult to ship all those jobs to India or China to create "value" for the shareholders. Damn them anyway!
Exactly how would teachers or garbage collectors manage to do the job from China or India?
The public sector is taxpayers, not shareholders. It does not create wealth, it absorbs it.
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Scott Walker may wind up being the last high profile victim of Big Union Money before they finally die off for good.
Public sector unions are no friend of the taxpayer.
Neither are the corporate lobbies, but you seem to give them a pass.
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moran:
I am surprised this election has not received more attention in many places as it is a big deal here and a lot of people think it will be an indicator of what might happen during the National election later this year so I am interested to see if any one has followed it and if they have any comments because from my perspective it is hard to argue with all his balanced budget with no new taxes arguments but I immagine there are people here who will so please and thank you.
http://www.salon.com/2012/04/29/whos_better_to_beat_scott_walker/singleton/
Trying to parse your statement...
There are plenty of arguments against "balanced budget with no new taxes arguments" ... whether you find them more credible is a matter of your assumptions and values. In case you've lived under a rock and haven't heard any counterarguments:
1. Taxes aren't the problem, at least in this economy. Corporations are currently flush with cash, but they are not running at maximum capacity because there's not enough demand for goods and services. You could raise taxes and it would not impact corporate operations or "jobs" one iota.
2. Cutting government services in a persistent economic slump is bad for economic growth on at least two accounts - first, it decreases demand for goods and services and continuing a situation where corporations are hoarding cash rather than investing and operating at full capacity. Second, it results in more unemployed workers: teachers, cops, firefighters, etc. These workers will move to other states where there is work in their specialized fields, or they will present a drain on public funds.
3. When you've got massive public unemployment and decreased economic activity by corporations, you have less tax revenue available to the state government and you risk a long-term vicious cycle where you slash more jobs and government services and further cut the legs out from under the economy. You've smothered the economy in order to save it - everyone loses.
From my perspective, Wisconsin law (I am not a Wisconsinite, so none of this affects me directly) allows citizens to organize and petition the government for a recall election if they are unhappy with their leaders. It's clear that the requisite number of people in Wisconsin were dissatisfied with Scott Walker - perhaps they felt that they'd been duped by his moderate Republican/jobs rhetoric.
They are fully within their rights to demand this election, and if the voters decide to give him the ax, neither Walker nor you nor I have got shit to say.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
From what I've gathered thus far, it seems the root of the problem is that some union leaders are upset that teachers no longer have to buy health insurance from an insurance company controlled by the union.
From what I've gathered, the problem is that Walker doesn't want public employees to be unionized at all. He opposes all collective bargaining by public employees. Which, of course, creates a tremendous imbalance of power.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
From what I've gathered thus far, it seems the root of the problem is that some union leaders are upset that teachers no longer have to buy health insurance from an insurance company controlled by the union.
From what I've gathered, the problem is that Walker doesn't want public employees to be unionized at all. He opposes all collective bargaining by public employees. Which, of course, creates a tremendous imbalance of power.
An imbalance of power is exactly what the uber-conservative agenda is all about.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Living in Illinois, we are near enough to Wisconsin that I have definitely heard about Scott Walker. Still, I see it mainly as a Wisconsin issue, and have been surprised it gets as much attention as it is. Maybe it's an indicator and maybe it isn't. If he gets recalled, we still won't know if that should be taken as an indicator or is just proof that he followed his policies badly.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Living in Illinois, we are near enough to Wisconsin that I have definitely heard about Scott Walker. Still, I see it mainly as a Wisconsin issue, and have been surprised it gets as much attention as it is. Maybe it's an indicator and maybe it isn't. If he gets recalled, we still won't know if that should be taken as an indicator or is just proof that he followed his policies badly.
But he didn't follow his policies badly. He followed them faithfully. Again, he is the living embodiment of the GOP riff that each and every tax is evil, that government is a voracious beast that must be starved, that every government program, every government service robs us of our freedom. What has happened in Wisconsin is that we were able to spin that worldview out to it's logical conclusion and see what it looks like. Evidently a sizable portion of the electorate did not like what they saw.
Whether that portends a greater epiphany on the part of the nation as a whole, as you said, only time will tell. One can only hope.
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Scott Walker may wind up being the last high profile victim of Big Union Money before they finally die off for good.
Public sector unions are no friend of the taxpayer.
Yes, they frustrate free enterprise by making it difficult to ship all those jobs to India or China to create "value" for the shareholders. Damn them anyway!
Exactly how would teachers or garbage collectors manage to do the job from China or India?
The public sector is taxpayers, not shareholders. It does not create wealth, it absorbs it.
romanlion,
It depends upon how you define 'wealth'. I would consider a state's roads, parks, schools, jails, fire stations, couthouses, etc. to constitute part of its wealth. Deficiencies in these areas would make a state poorer in my opinion.
Even if you narrrowly define 'wealth' as consumer goods, I don't think that you can deny that the public sector greatly facilitates the creation and distribution of consumer goods. The examples are myriad.
Moreover, it is obvious that the provision of services, not the manufacture of consumer goods, is the principal role of government. In advanced economies, services should become increasingly important. When the need for consumer goods has been basically met and even vastly exceeded, services like education and health care should not be allowed to grossly lag behind.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Scott Walker may wind up being the last high profile victim of Big Union Money before they finally die off for good.
Public sector unions are no friend of the taxpayer.
Yes, they frustrate free enterprise by making it difficult to ship all those jobs to India or China to create "value" for the shareholders. Damn them anyway!
Exactly how would teachers or garbage collectors manage to do the job from China or India?
The public sector is taxpayers, not shareholders. It does not create wealth, it absorbs it.
I cannnot speak to the public service in other countries, but creation of wealth was one of the mandates I had as a bureaucrat. One year, for which I tried to make notes (long story), I administered 45 grants, totalling about $320,000. Most of them were necessary to the projects taking place (about 10 weren't). We figured that they were responsible for $1.8m in economic activity. Not a bad return!
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
quote:
From what I've gathered, the problem is that Walker doesn't want public employees to be unionized at all.
From what I've gathered, the problem is that Walker doesn't want public employees.
His evil political twin, by the way, Rick Snyder, is dict- -- I mean, governor of Michigan.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
quote:
From what I've gathered, the problem is that Walker doesn't want public employees to be unionized at all.
From what I've gathered, the problem is that Walker doesn't want public employees.
(His evil political twin, Rick Snyder, is governor of my state, Michigan.)
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
Bump to discuss the results.
Walker survived, by about 7% of the vote. Exit polls showed that Obama would still carry Wisconsin if the election were today, but by less than he did in 2008.
I am going to go out on a limb and say that the results tell us more about voter's feelings about recalls than public sector unions. I have participated in one recall election in my lifetime. In that case, it was a mayor of a small town who was unable to work with anyone at city hall. If she didn't go, the rest of the government was going to quit. So she got voted out.
Here, I think you had a governor being recalled for a political position he took. In a country suffering from political fatigue, the last thing voters want is the true believers demanding a recall every time a politician does something they don't like. Voters seem to be saying, put up a candidate in a regular election year, and beat the incumbent then. But don't create a system where we are constantly in election season.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
Bless the BBC. That is where I first heard the results (at about midnight my time), which confirmed what I had feared.
The coverage was good, except for the amusing (if understandable) mispronunciation of one of Wisconsin's numerous Indian-named towns. Wau-KESH-a, she said. It should be WAU-kee-shaw. But who across the Atlantic would know that, unless it's in an announcer's pronunciation dictionary?
Big business poured money into the Walker campaign <surprise>. His Democratic opponent, the mayor of Milwaukee, was not only a lackluster campaigner, but was himself guilty of some of the peremptory union-busting tactics that so alienated residents from Walker. Hence the he was unwilling to talk about the one burning issue and unable to be a convincing alternative. Tweedledum and tweedledee.
Nevertheless, I am not proud of my home State today. BBC commentary describes Walker as a quiet tea partier, as though that ought to be reassuring. It isn't. Snakes in the grass are quiet, even when they strike. Our governor of Pennsylvania is similar. He doesn't make much noise, either, preferring to do his dirty work in the background amidst all the machinery.
Both of them are dramatically alien to the progressive traditions of their states. Creatures from outer space. But a sense of history has become too much to ask of the American electorate. They're lucky if they can remember a politician's antics for two years.
My own sister supported Walker. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I don't think I can discuss it with her. What would Dad say, a teacher who always had to pinch pennies to support his family? When we moved house (usually from one rented house to another), it was mostly DIY, in a little red utility trailer (which fortunately he had bought before I was born and always kept). It was all we could afford. Every time we saw another utility trailer on the road, we said, "there goes a teacher!" Teacher's unions were unheard of, you see.
Perhaps for awhile people with master's degrees, who had more homework to do every day than they ever assigned their students, could afford to live like other college-educated workers. Thanks to Walker, those days are over. Flash in the pan. Back to normal.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
His Democratic opponent, the mayor of Milwaukee, was not only a lackluster campaigner, but was himself guilty of some of the peremptory union-busting tactics that so alienated residents from Walker. Hence the he was unwilling to talk about the one burning issue and unable to be a convincing alternative. Tweedledum and tweedledee.
It probably didn't help that he was the very same candidate who Walker ran against in 2010. At that point, it really looks like you are just demanding a recall because you didn't like the result in 2010.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
Romanlion said:
quote:
The public sector is taxpayers, not shareholders. It does not create wealth, it absorbs it.
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
The public sector is a huge creator of wealth.
The public sector creates the roads, aqueducts, reservoirs, bridges that allow cities to exist and business to create and transport goods. It gives us the educated workforce which leads to new technologies, products and services. The public sector gives us the legal and court framework which allows for the extension of credit, creation of the banks and stockmarkets and the transactions of business. It does basic research in science which leads to new business opportunities, inventions and products.
Without the public sector this country would be a far poorer place. The public sector is every bit as much of a wealth creator as the private sector. Business wouldn't be able to function without it.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Romanlion said:
quote:
The public sector is taxpayers, not shareholders. It does not create wealth, it absorbs it.
The public sector is a huge creator of wealth.
The public sector creates the roads, aqueducts, reservoirs, bridges that allow cities to exist and business to create and transport goods. It gives us the educated workforce which leads to new technologies, products and services. The public sector gives us the legal and court framework which allows for the extension of credit, creation of the banks and stockmarkets and the transactions of business. It does basic research in science which leads to new business opportunities, inventions and products.
Without the public sector this country would be a far poorer place. The public sector is every bit as much of a wealth creator as the private sector. Business wouldn't be able to function without it.
Too true. And Romanlion's absurd slogan, if true, would lead to the even more absurd notion that someone working in the public sector one day whose job is privatised the next instantly moves from being a net drain on society to being a net benefit.
Its one of those things that people might say but they obviously haven't thought about in any detail or they'd never be able to say it with a straight face.
Here's a better slogan for Romanlion, one that does bear thinking about:
quote:
United we bargain. Divided we beg.
Posted by George6833 (# 14995) on
:
Anyone here willing to talk about the fact that he wants to take away the limited rights that gay folk in Wisconsin have? To start with the fact that you wouldn't have the right to visit your dying partner in the hospital or make end-of-life decisions? He's not just homophobic, but unChristian and hateful. My opinion. Looking
for commentary
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
Walker got in trouble with the left because of his stance on public sector unions. He got recalled because he pushed through bills in line with that stance, even after the legislature's Democratic minority fled to Illinois to prevent a vote. I think he got saved because 52 percent of Wisconsin voters approve of his handling of the issue, and because only 27 percent of Wisconsin voters support holding recall votes even if the person being recalled has not been accused of any misconduct. So the gay issues may be an issue the next time he is up for general election, but as far as the recall goes, I doubt that they played a major part.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George6833:
Anyone here willing to talk about the fact that he wants to take away the limited rights that gay folk in Wisconsin have? To start with the fact that you wouldn't have the right to visit your dying partner in the hospital or make end-of-life decisions? He's not just homophobic, but unChristian and hateful.
He's Republican. So what else is new?
Federal regulations require that hospitals honor patients' wishes as to who will be permitted to visit them, under penalty of losing Medicare benefits. Walker is certainly unChristian and hateful, but probably not so stupid as to cause hospitals to lose a major source of income.
Posted by Wilfried (# 12277) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
From what I've gathered, the problem is that Walker doesn't want public employees.
Scott Walker is a public employee. He also gets a state pension.
Posted by Choirboy (# 9659) on
:
It has yet to survive a probable recount, but the one small Democratic victory of the recall election may be the recall of a Republican State Senator from Kenosha (S21, I think). If it stands, this gives the Democrats a 1-vote majority in the Senate.
As the Legislature is in recess until after November elections, all this will mean is that Walker will probably not call a special session of the Legislature to push through more legislation in advance of the regular elections. The make-up of the next Legislature will then determine the future course until Walker's term ends in two more years (unless he's convicted of a felony).
And so it continues....
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wilfried:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
From what I've gathered, the problem is that Walker doesn't want public employees.
Scott Walker is a public employee. He also gets a state pension.
It's other people that are the problem, not Walker.
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on
:
Scott Walker has been messing around in Illinois, too.
Illinois has a tricky issue--state workers do not pay Social Security. Rather, they pay into a state system, and they pay 50% more than they would if they simply paid into Social Security. Although the workers have been paying their share, which is simply deducted from their paychecks, the state has not. Where does the money go instead? Take a guess.
Now the pension funds are not financed properly, and the state wants to mess around with it. The employees were the victims in this case, and collective bargaining is the only way they can protect their interests. [So, of course, it would be very convenient to eliminate those already very-controlled rights.]
What about those cushy raises that state employees get? Ha! The increase in insurance contributions more than cancels them out every year.
What will happen to Illinois in the next 20 years? Crane your head north and a little east to Michigan.
Posted by 205 (# 206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Walker survived, by about 7% of the vote.
'survived'?
In my world of US politics 7% approaches mandate.
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 205:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Walker survived, by about 7% of the vote.
'survived'?
In my world of US politics 7% approaches mandate.
I concur. 7% is not close by US standards.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 205:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Walker survived, by about 7% of the vote.
'survived'?
In my world of US politics 7% approaches mandate.
I find that hard to believe. Most of your posts have led me to believe you consider a 7% margin of victory in a U.S. election to be the trickery of an illegitimate interloper (but a 2% margin is a "mandate").
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
"Mandate" is a stretch, though, given the numbers in exit polls that said they were opposed to recalls on principle, or that even though they weren't Walker supporters, they didn't think he'd done anything worthy of being recalled.
Message the Dems heard: "Money buys elections."
Message Walker heard: "They love me! They love me!"
Message the voters were sending: "Recall elections rub us the wrong way."
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
7% is quite a sizable margin. The political system in the US is largely a two party system, so on average you're probably going to get about 40% of voters who would only ever vote for the Democratic Party regardless of the candidate, and about 40% who would only ever vote for the Republican Party regardless of the candidate. The exact numbers would vary from state to state of course.
Winning an election is about convincing the 20% who are swinging voters that your side deserves their vote more than the other side. A margin of seven percentage points over the whole electorate could really be a result of those swinging voters being won 67% for Walker and 33% for the opponent.
That does of course assume that the Democratic party managed to convince their faithful to turn out and vote. Did they?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
The League of Nations handed mandates out to colonial powers (often Britain or France), mostly for the lands formerly run by the Ottoman empire. There was next to no democratic process and the result was the Middle East as we know it today.
Mandates make me cringe and any politician, especially one in power, ought to realise that history isn't on their side.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:
Originally posted by 205:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Walker survived, by about 7% of the vote.
'survived'?
In my world of US politics 7% approaches mandate.
I concur. 7% is not close by US standards.
Well, this is a country where you can lose the popular vote by a substantial margin and still have a "mandate" (Bush/Gore 2000), so I'd agree.
[ 07. June 2012, 12:14: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
7% is quite a sizable margin. The political system in the US is largely a two party system, so on average you're probably going to get about 40% of voters who would only ever vote for the Democratic Party regardless of the candidate, and about 40% who would only ever vote for the Republican Party regardless of the candidate. The exact numbers would vary from state to state of course.
Some suggest that number is closer to 27%. Here's the argument.
quote:
John: Hey, Bush is now at 37% approval. I feel much less like Kevin McCarthy screaming in traffic. But I wonder what his base is --
Tyrone: 27%.
John: ... you said that immmediately, and with some authority.
Tyrone: Obama vs. Alan Keyes. Keyes was from out of state, so you can eliminate any established political base; both candidates were black, so you can factor out racism; and Keyes was plainly, obviously, completely crazy. Batshit crazy. Head-trauma crazy. But 27% of the population of Illinois voted for him. They put party identification, personal prejudice, whatever ahead of rational judgement. Hell, even like 5% of Democrats voted for him. That's crazy behaviour. I think you have to assume a 27% Crazification Factor in any population.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
Glad it got some discussion going, but I didn't use the word "survived" with the intention of saying anything about the size of the victory one way or another.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
Interesting to look at the numbers involved, the recall election had a much higher turnout than the 2010 election as well as an increased margin.
Questions from a confused Aussie here - how does a recall election take place in a system where the head of state and the head of government are the same person in a horrifying conglomeration of power? Is it something that the Governor can authorise if he or she is confident of a win or deny if they'll face a heavy loss? If not, who does authorise it? Will those who wanted it face any kind of financial accountability for the state funds wasted on putting on an election?
I think I like the Parliamentary system better, having a non-political Governor (state) and Governor-General (national) who has fearsome powers to dissolve the Parliament and call an election when they aren't busy awarding bravery medals or doing whatever patrons of charities do. It can be a cumbersome system, but the threat of that ever happening does help things from getting too extreme.
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on
:
Giant cheeseburger, a recall usually starts with a petition, which is required to obtain a certain number of signatures, based on population or number of registered voters. It is understood that these ventures will only succeed if public sentiment is already supportive of a recall. Of course, it helps to have the backing of a major political party, so that the local meetings of that party can help to obtain the signatures required.
It is very much a grassroots effort, although corporate interests can.easily sway the public with positive or negative press.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
Questions from a confused Aussie here - how does a recall election take place in a system where the head of state and the head of government are the same person in a horrifying conglomeration of power? Is it something that the Governor can authorise if he or she is confident of a win or deny if they'll face a heavy loss? If not, who does authorise it? Will those who wanted it face any kind of financial accountability for the state funds wasted on putting on an election?
The U.S. government is kind of a patchwork quilt of legal standards, so each state has its own laws for such things. Not all state allow recall elections. Some that do require specific grounds (malfeasance or misconduct). In Wisconsin there are no necessary grounds, but there is a minimum time period that must have elapsed between the initial election and the start of the recall process.
As for how it's initiated, the basic premise at work is that elected officials serve at the will of the voters, so the voters can choose to end the official's term early if dissatisfied with his or her performance. As such, a petition bearing the signatures of a certain number of registered voters (usually a certain percentage of either the total number of registered voters in the jurisdiction or the number who voted in the most recent election) is required to hold a recall election. If the number of signatures collected are verified as valid by the state's election authority (usually the Secretary of State, which can be problematic because that's not an apolitical position) a recall election is scheduled for a date a certain number of days/weeks/months from the certification of the petition.
As noted before, not all U.S. states have a recall process. It's more common in western states and was usually enacted (along with referendum processes) as a check on the actions of railroad companies and mining interests, who would often rather blatantly buy off state legislatures during the Gilded Age.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
Giant cheeseburger, a recall usually starts with a petition, which is required to obtain a certain number of signatures, based on population or number of registered voters. It is understood that these ventures will only succeed if public sentiment is already supportive of a recall. Of course, it helps to have the backing of a major political party, so that the local meetings of that party can help to obtain the signatures required.
It is very much a grassroots effort, although corporate interests can.easily sway the public with positive or negative press.
How it goes from a petition to an actual recall election is what I'm interested in, because in these days of polarised politics you could get a good-sized petition going the moment a government is sworn in Is there a well-defined process that has some objective way of separating cases where a recall election has genuine merits from cases of people just refusing to accept an election result?
Still not sure if it's a good idea without a well-defined process that safeguards against it being manipulated by big interests, and having a politically compromised electoral authority is very concerning, UN observers have been sent to other countries for less than that. While you say it's a grassroots effort it sounds like it is rigged to fail without a considerable amount of astroturfing, i.e. big interests posing as fake grassroots.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
How it goes from a petition to an actual recall election is what I'm interested in, because in these days of polarised politics you could get a good-sized petition going the moment a government is sworn in. Is there a well-defined process that has some objective way of separating cases where a recall election has genuine merits from cases of people just refusing to accept an election result?
I think that is essentially what happened in Wisconsin, and the voters were not standing for it. The recall is apparently an old thing, although it gained popularity here during the populist age, which makes some sense
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on
:
Here's probably whatever info you could want about the Wisconsin recall, straight from the horse's (cow's?) mouth. I do see that a recall cannot occur until a year has passed since the election. Of course, in the event of major criminal activity, it is still possible for an official to be impeached before then.
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
Still not sure if it's a good idea without a well-defined process that safeguards against it being manipulated by big interests, and having a politically compromised electoral authority is very concerning, UN observers have been sent to other countries for less than that. While you say it's a grassroots effort it sounds like it is rigged to fail without a considerable amount of astroturfing, i.e. big interests posing as fake grassroots.
Well, that's the problem now, isn't it? Without limits on contributions and with little transparency about funding sources, there is a ton of opportunity to take advantage of the poor unwashed masses. Throw in a little religious guilt (which, by the way, is what happened with the Alan Keyes-Barack Obama senatorial election in Illinois mentioned here), and you've got a recipe for corporate interests to buy whatever they want politically, as long as they have enough money.
I see two major points of manipulation that seem to occur, aside from the massive financial contributions for corporate interests.
1. Corporate interests leading small business owners to believe that they are part of one big, happy group
2. Using people's religious beliefs to trick them into voting a certain way
[ 07. June 2012, 19:27: Message edited by: Martin L ]
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on
:
I wonder, too, if the dismal results of California's recall of Gray Davis had any effect. I think very few Californians would now consider that recall successful or even warranted. The campaign alone, with its multitude of nutter candidates, made the state a national laughing-stock once again.
Then, we chose a loose-cannon movie star over Gov. Milque-toast, who made one bad decision (raising auto registration fees)in a sincere attempt to partially reduce the state's debt. If the voters had forgiven Davis that relatively minor trespass(I know! I know! It is California where cars are our treasures), there is a very good chance he may have done a better job of debt reduction than did Arnold, who did next to nothing, if anything at all, in this vital matter.
I think that the vast majority of Californians were happy to see Arnold leave the Governor's mansion. In retrospect, they likely view the recall as a total waste of money, accomplishing nothing other than adding more bulk to Arnold's hyperinflated ego.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0