I think recalls should not be entered into lightly and should be under a strict set of circumstances. We elect representatives according to a platform and set of principles that we believe they will use to guide their legislative actions as well as their competence to do the job. In the case of the Colorado recall, I am very glad for the ousting of two misguided, gun fearing liberals, BUT Coloradans elected two gun grabbing liberals so why should they be surprised when they voted to restrict gun owners rights? When Scott Walker was elected governor of Wisconsin, he ran on the platform of being pro-active in reigning in union overreach. He won handily and when he did what he said he was going to do, he suddenly found himself in a long drawn out, expensive, tax-payer funded recall that never should have happened. Elections have consequences, and it is our duty as voters to know the candidates we elect BEFORE we elect them. If a candidate wins an election then acts on the same set of principles that they ran on even if it is contrary to public opinion, then shame on the voters, not the elected official. If a candidate clearly acts contrary to the principles they ran on then bring on the recall. Recall should also be used for abandonment and dereliction of duty. Other than those circumstances, be careful what you ask for...you might just get it.
Today's Poll: Should NYS have recall elections?
Submitted by Howard Owens on September 11, 2013 - 6:31am
New York Times: Colorado Lawmakers Ousted in Recall Vote Over Gun Law
I'd compare it to the private sector. We all do the best we can when hiring a person; references, background checks, drug screenings, etc. Usually it's a good hire.
Occasionally, in spite of our best efforts, we find ourselves with an under performing employee or one that does not follow established rules of the workplace. NY is an employment at will state, meaning that either the employer or the employee can sever the relationship without notice and without cause.
Maybe - just maybe - if our "representatives" knew that we (the employer) could "can" them expeditiously, Albany would not be the dysfunctional, under performing, and entrenched mockery that it is.
If we have no option of a recall, at the very least we should impose term limits on elected officials at every level.
I am with Jeff all the way on this. Vetting a candidate before you vote for them is clearly an important part of responsible voting.
My problem with recall is simple, it is much too easy for recall to become a political tool. This was most evident in Wisconsin as Jeff pointed out. Pure democracy is Pure Anarchy, that is why we have a republic and representative government.
How can we expect a law maker or an elected official to make the 'Right' choice based on sound reasoning if every decision is subject to a recall vote. Recent history has clearly shown us how emotion can be used as a political tool in lieu of responsible decision making.
Some times, and usually more often than not, the POPULAR vote is not necessarily the right vote. Our system also provides for recourse through the courts when constitutionality of an issue comes into question.
We should all remember, our system and our constitution is NOT there to protect the will of the people, rather it is there to protect the rights of the individual (At times against the will of the people}
Your vote on election day is of prime importance, Aside of an official breaking the law, election day is where all decisions about who holds office should be made.