Hi LL,
"It is profoundly anti-democratic"
OKaaay. Once again: Will somebody explain to me how a free, honest election can be "anti-democratic"? Aren't elections what democracy IS?
I don't know precisely what they are thinking but my own take on recalling elected officials is that the threat of recall (for other than criminal behavior) very likely hamstrings those who might need to make the sometimes unpopular but, in the long run, necessary decisions.
Our system puts the people's choice in a position of power for a specified period. We trust that he/she will have the courage to make tough, perhaps unpopular, decisions. This delegation of authority and the expectation of freedom of action is incompatible with the concept of recall for unpopular, but still legal, decisions.
People have speculated about using the Internet as a form of "Instant Democracy" but one shortcoming is certain. That problem is the "tyranny of the majority", a process by which the rights of all minorities, on any type of issue, are trampled by the weight of the majority. Having an election cycle 'delay' in the system allows public figures to do right thing, even if it is not the majority position.
The Bill of Rights contains mechanisms that protect unpopular positions. Every democracy must consider this difficult problem.
This, in a nutshell, is why I opposed the recall.
--fl |
