On Recalls and Referendums
 

That's Fox News you're quoting here.
Direct democracy isn't inherently worse than a republic, but to make it work you need educated population, raising which takes time, and smart questions to ask from them. Balancing the budget by voting will never happen.

Considering the average American voter, I'm becoming more amenable to the reinstitution of a hereditary monarchy.

Looks like Walker is going to win. http://www.discussworldissues.com/im...ons/icon14.gif

Well, now that that's over, I really am interested in whether people think recalls and referendums are worth it.

If they're so friendly and neighborly, why are they called The Badger State? That doesn't say friendly to me.

I think this is only like the third governor to face a recall election in our history, so that seems reasonable. It was probably reasonable to oust Gray Davis in California. I agree that trying to boot Walker wasn't reasonable this time around, but I don't see why we should throw out the whole recall mechanism.

I'm fine with referendums too.

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/lol.gifhttp://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/lol.gifhttp://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/lol.gif

Apparently, he did have a mandate, as has been shown in two recall elections. God you're dumb.

I also find it hilarious that someone from Britain could be so up in arms about the passage of something in a Midwestern US state. And on top of that, something that is already true in 20+ other states.

The referendum was a useful tool for Hitler.

Just saying...

This should be a litmus test. Any self-professed liberal who does not recognize this whole Wisconsin brouhaha as idiotic and inane is a hopelessly lost hyperpartisan, equal to the worst elements of the right.

It goes along with liberals always claiming they represent the people... the history of both Europe and the US with 'reactionary populism', etc. just shows how different the salt of the earth people are from the liberal elites that claim to represent them.

A liberal posted on her facebook a status asking if anyone understood what 'reactionary populism' is. I explained it to her. That idea was so foreign to her as a liberal http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/lol.gif

If you want to argue that you can have a recall election for any disagreeable thing that come down the pike as a general precept, please do so. As it is, your not addressing that so much as you're having a seizure over an unfortunate result.

I also find it hilarious that someone from Britain could be so up in arms about the passage of something in a Midwestern US state. And on top of that, something that is already true in 20+ other states. Kentonio also claims to possess education qualifications. Just because he says it doesn't make it true.

Oh, and I'm opposed to recall of elected officials - that's what elections are for. There should be a sore loser law, where if you get your *** handed to you, you can't run in the recall.

What is your message here? I'm just curious.

Is this comment based on actual data about how "salt of the earth" people voted or are you just assuming they supported Walker?

Here's a hint: people making less than $50,000 supported Barrett.

So something cannot be hugely unpopular but also legal? You're the one who want's to step away from simply the Wisconsin thing so try it, thing about the possibilities. What if a party gains power but then passes laws which 99% of the population hate? Should they have to wait 4 years to reverse those?

So if you elect a party who then pass legal but completely unpopular bills that are contrary to their campaign promises, people should have no recourse for potentially 4 years?

I just wanted to make sure I was understanding you. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/smile.gif

You might want to try that argument out on Mojo, see what happens. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/smile.gif

So if you elect a party who then pass legal but completely unpopular bills that are contrary to their campaign promises, people should have no recourse for potentially 4 years? Yes! That's what elections are for.

Am I allowed to fence sit on this issue?

I don't see anything inherently wrong with having gubernatorial elections every two years instead of every four years. Of course, there is the possibility that voters would get tired of having so many elections but if the requirements for holding a recall are strict enough that should protect against the possibility of constant elections that voters are sick of. If you are offended by the proposition that people in positions of power should have to keep the public satisfied throughout their term and not just once every four years, you hate democracy.