politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
You shouldn't be able to file a recall petition without some kind of evidence.
If you come in with "well, I believe it..." the correct response should be "Well, I believe you're an idiot... go home."
California requires you to officially state reasons when you ask for a recall. They just get filled in with a bunch of nonsense in cases like this.
Agreed. You have to state a reasonable case, otherwise no one will sign the petition. But if someone turns out not to be the person you thought you were voting for, and enough other people agree, then you shouldn't have to be like "aw shucks, I guess they just get to keep doing their job until the next election."
"Whoops, we made a mistake... and it's you" is a very important part of democratic politics.
You should be able to file a recall petition for any damn reason you want (edit: if you are able to gather sufficient support/signatures, obviously. This isn't The Office, no one is saying random people should be able to stand up and say I DECLARE A RECALL and then it happens).
"I don't like you and most of the people you work for don't either" is sufficient cause to ask for the removal of someone who works for the public. If enough people agree with you, that's that. It's called direct democracy. You should try it out.
You don't need to commit a crime for people to not want you to serve or represent them, though I could see how the current state of politics might lead you to believe that. If you work for the people and enough of the people you work for no longer want you to work for them, there are mechanisms to remedy that. It's basic democracy. Sheesh.
Perhaps you're confusing political democracy with corporate contractualism? She doesn't work for a private company. She's an elected official. You don't have to be convicted of a crime to be recalled. You really don't have to do anything except lose the political support of your constituency to be threatened by a recall in most democratic governments.
Perhaps you've heard of George Santos? Or snap elections?
Mod of Politics, everyone. Take a bow, @[email protected]
"Not liking someone" isn't a reason for a recall. A recall should be done for cause, otherwise, vote against them, or hell, run against them.
If a sufficient amount of people that the person works for don't like the person, that's called the "will of the people." If you can describe the reasons you don't like someone and get sufficient support for your position to file a recall, that is quite literally what a recall is for and what democracy means.
You're under the impression that if someone you've elected starts governing in ways you don't appreciate, and a majority of the constituency for that person feels similarly, then it's just "too bad, wait for the next election?" Aside from it largely not being the case, why would you want that to be the case?
I understand what you mean, insofar as it seems capricious, but if someone is duly elected, a recall is unlikely to pass merit or muster.
But in a democracy, you can and should be able to recall anyone that was elected. It's basically the control-Z of democracy, and it's actually a very important facet of a well functioning democracy that holds its public officials to account to the will of the people.
The article, which perhaps you didn't finish, is precisely about this fact. You can start a recall petition, but you can't just make stuff up and make up voters in order to do it.
You might disagree with various democratic processes, but this seems silly for someone as wise as you to have a problem with. And I mean that. I have a lot of respect for your intelligence and even-handed moderation sensibilities. I imagine we agree on a lot of things, but recalls are politics not business.
Will of the people is called "an election".
If you don't like someone, vote them out.
It there's active malfeasance, that's when you don't wait for an election and run a recall, or an impeachment if a recall is not an option.
But "I don't like you" should never be the reason. Otherwise every election would end in a recall.
A recall petition is precisely "voting them out." It's a mechanism for doing it before an election cycle.
"I like you" and "I don't like you" are exactly, for better or worse, how elections work. A recall is simply the demand of the people to run an election off-cycle if there is sufficient support. You aren't going to get a recall petition certified if the only reason you don't like someone is "you don't like them," but there are many reasons to recall a politician that don't need to reach the level of malfeasance.
Again. Politics not private business?
I'm honestly struggling to understand why you wouldn't support that idea.
Many states require recalls be run for cause, I personally believe ALL recalls should be run that way.
If you don't have a reason for a recall beyond "feelings" then there is no reason for a recall.
See how it works in Washington as a good example, this prevents frivolous recalls.
https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_recall_in_Washington
"Article I, §33 of the Washington Constitution states that a recall can only occur if the targeted public official has "committed some act or acts of malfeasance or misfeasance while in office, or who has violated his oath of office."[1]"
Show the evidence, run the recall.
No evidence? GTFO. See you next election.
Misfeasance quite literally means, in this statute and in a legally denotative sense, you did something someone deems inappropriate or wrong, but not necessarily harmful or illegal. I.e., you did something someone(s) didn't like.
You're literally arguing against your own point now. And honestly, I meant it and still mean it when I say I have so much respect for you. I don't understand what's happening right now.
No, what they are doing in Nevada is an imagined grievance. They have no evidence, because nothing was done. No recall should be allowed without evidence.
There are a handful of examples of recalls without crimes by the official; Santa Clara County in California recalled a judge because people felt he was lenient with a rapist for example.
The big difference with this one is that the things the recall proponents dislike are all imagined.
I mean, being lenient with a rapist would be a breach of official duties and is well beyond the generic call of "well, we don't like you."
Here in Portland we had a problem with the DA failing to prosecute people, which, you know, is kind of his job?
We didn't recall him, we just voted him out in the next election.
https://www.kgw.com/article/news/politics/elections/multnomah-county-district-attorney-race-election-results/283-e5b76f7a-9497-488b-b432-08dc9deec27d
We'll see if the next guy wants to do the job starting in January.