PLEASE PLEASE READ !! THE CASE FOR A NATIONAL RECALL ELECTION

[PennyMan]

Why Wait Three Years for Our Next President?
ADVERTISEMENT

NEW YORK--By August 2003 California Governor
Gray Davis' approval rating had plunged to 22 percent.
Two months later, he lost a special recall election.

Now it's George W. Bush's turn to take a drubbing.
The latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll finds that only 37 percent of Americans think he's doing a good job,
a record low for him and a dangerous drop below the historical benchmark of 40 percent.



Here Is The Link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/20051201/cm_ucru/thecaseforanationalrecallelection;_ylt=A86.I0GeEI9DSjEBRD_9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA

[Vickers]

1. I just read the U.S. Constitution, and there is no provision for that

Sorry.

[AllegroRondo]

2. Yup, only Impeachment is possible

[Dr.Phool]

3. Well, there's that other thing.

[AllegroRondo]

7. You mean the 25th amendment?

[Benhurst]

4. Thanks for taking the time to read the Constitution. It's so

difficult now that it's been shredded beyond recognition. I just don't have the patience. I guess I'd wouldn't have been very good as a crime scene investigator.

[Der Blaue Engel]

6. That's why the author of the article suggests an amendment

One solution is to establish a California-style recall system on the national level. If a significant percentage of Americans loses confidence in the president and his administration to the extent that they're willing to sign a recall petition, a special election should be held within three months. The number of required signatures should be high enough--California's system calls for 12 percent of the number of people who cast votes in the preceding election--to ensure that recalls are only held as the result of widespread disgust among the citizenry.

To avoid disruption, the constitutional amendment creating the recall provision could prevent such elections from being held more often than, say, annually. And a recall won't automatically result in a new party taking over the White House--just a new administration. But it would replace our current system of political stagnation with a more dynamic democracy.

[Vickers]

9. Yeah, I read the article...it'll never fly

And it certainly is not a solution to the current "unpleasantness."

[Up2Late]

10. Exactly, even though they call it a national election, it's not.

All the Presidential elections are State election that the Congress has only recently directed the states to have on the same day.

[win_in_06]

5. If we win big in 06 he will become irrelevant. Let's focus on that.

[ISUGRADIA]

8. If this was constitutional it could go both ways

If we had a recall in place even odds that Clinton would have been out in 1994.

[onenote]

11. national recall = bad idea

This has been kicked around on DU in the past. It just doesn't work at the national level. Lets start with the petitioning process -- 12 percent of the number of people that voted in the previous election. That would be around 14.5 million handwritten signature by my estimate, and each one of them would have to be checked to make sure its accurate. That should take something like forever. Plus, under our electoral college system, not every vote is equal (as would be the case if we elected presidents based on popular vote alone), so its unlikely that you could ever ratify a constitutional amendment for a straight recall approach any more than you could amend the constitution to do away with the electoral college.

Even more problematic would be the fact that after any close election, there immediately would be an effort by the losing side to recall the victor. We would be in a state of perpetual campaigning (even more than is the case today, which is bad enough). Ridiculous amounts of money would be expended on the effort and, quite frankly, Democrats would be as vulnerable, if not moreso, to this kind of tyranny.

No thanks

onenote