One of my all time favorite movies is The American President. One of my favorite lines in that movie comes from Michael J. Fox. His character serves as an advisor to the President and, in the midst of extreme frustration, exhorts the Chief of Staff: "In this country it is not only permissible to question our leaders, it is our responsibility."
This week we had the opportunity to watch the state of Wisconsin engage in the questioning of one of its leaders. Through that recall election, several conversations have opened up around the country. This week we will engage in those same debates. In your original post, please respond to each of the three questions. In your response to others, you may consider any combination of the discussion questions.
After reading each of the articles below, and any others of your choosing, please respond to the following:
1. When is it appropriate for citizens to engage in the recall of an elected official? When they have committed a crime? When the people do not agree with their actions, even though there is no illegality or abuse of power? Never? Explain.
2. Why, do you think, Scott Walker was able to dodge this recall?
3. What are the implications, if any, for the presidential election in November?
Definition and brief history of recall elections:
http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/recall-of-state-officials.aspx
Results of Wisconsin recall:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/us/politics/walker-survives-wisconsin-recall-effort.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
November Implication Opinions:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-06-06/wisconsin-recall-walker-analysis/55420250/1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/wisconsin-recall-should-not-be-read-as-harbinger-for-november-mitch-daniels-says/2012/06/10/gJQAJSYJSV_blog.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-uphill-battle-for-democrats-20120607,0,7320039.story
NOTE ON BLOG SCHEDULE CHANGES*** Due to a summer schedule conflict the week of June 25th will not be a Government topic but will be an Economics topic. August 6th will be a Government Topic, not an Economics topic. There is no blog August 8th, as mentioned on the summer work assignment sheet. It is your responsiblity to keep track of the weeks you are participating in.
Recalls are appropriate whenever there is concern that a representative does not accurately represent the opinions of the majority. Scott Walker remains in power because a majority of Wisconsin voters do feel that he represents them well. This only one data point, so it'd be foolish to read too far into it as far the presidential election is concerned. While it does serve to highlight that certain blue states are now considered swing states, the same is also true of some formerly red states, including Arizona.
ReplyDeleteI agree that recalls are a fundamental piece of Democracy, but it cost the state over $9 million just to run the extra election, an election that was only provoked because of the state's debt. Sounds a bit ridiculous to me.
DeleteTrace, please further explain your thoughts. Consider these questions: how do the people know when a representative is no longer accurately reflecting the opinions of the majority? Should representatives only reflect the majority? What about minority opinions? Don't those also matter? In what ways does Walker represent the people well? Elections are often determined on one point - why do you think this is not enough info? Please, tell me more!
DeleteAlso, be aware...AZ is not yet considered a swing state in this election. :)
Of course the minority is important, but recall elections are a plain stupid way to go about furthering or protecting minorities, as elections can only hope to reinforce the majority. The constitution provides for a judicial branch to ensure that the rights of minorities are upheld. If persecuted minorities wish to further themselves beyond rights that already exist, it is a necessary evil that they first gain the support of the majority. Without necessitating majority support, it would be too easy for groups to falsely claim persecution.
DeleteBy my comment on limited data, I meant that it would be foolhardy to think of the Wisconsin recall as a microcosm for the presidential election. While Wisconsin voters may be very good at representing Wisconsin, they do not represent the entire US.
Justine, this recall was certainly justified. Gov. Walker had taken actions which were extremely controversial even outside Wisconsin, and polls had indicated that the recall had a good chance of success. It might be smart to work at making elections less costly, but that says nothing about the elections themselves.
In this day and age of turbulent waves of bipartisanship and the State’s grave condition, it’s no wonder that it’s going to get even more difficult as the upcoming 2012 election brews in the distance. While I’m quite pleased that the American people are finally coming to a head and taking responsibility for the outcome of their nation, I’m also a bit disappointed. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, the grounds of recall of a state official are often based on the event of a serious felony or office misconduct, or even poor fitness. So while Scott Walker may have survived the recall based on his rogue decision to eliminate public bargaining rights, there needs to be some investigation on just how he and other Republicans are slowly shifting the tone of the upcoming election.
ReplyDeleteApparently, Mr. Walker has been graced with $45.6 million during the recall election timeframe, whereas his opponent Mr. Barrett only received $17.9 million, leaving Walker’s funds seven to one in comparison with Barrett. What’s more, is that the conservative donors that helped fund Walker’s campaign to maintain his position were all out of state; having no obligation or impact from Walker’s legislative objectives. Oddly enough, there is a majority of Democrats reigning in Wisconsin, so the win for Republican Walker came as quite the shock. Despite the news that “nearly 9 in 10 people said they had made up their minds before May”, let it be known that Walker’s propaganda began several months before the recall election was in effect. Ever since the 2010 bar on “restricting political expenditures from corporations, unions and other groups” from the Supreme Court, unfortunately one can only expect that corporate lobbyists will continue to play a huge role on the outcome of all elections.
Because of the current financial escapade by Republicans in Wisconsin, many assume that Obama will have a tough time capturing the majority of the state in the upcoming election. According to current statistics, Obama is still ahead of Romney by 7%. Despite the lead, "it would be foolish for any Democrat to take these states for granted”, which puts the standoffish President Obama in the hot seat. Whether Wisconsin fluctuates to the right or left is not the primary issue for this upcoming election. The issue at hand is that the only political pawn being played in this election is the one thing this country doesn’t have: money.
I agree that money will be the biggest factor in the upcoming election. Money was also a huge factor in the outcome of the recall election, as well. Money is power and whoever is well funded will be successful. In one of the articles, Mr. Walker was referred to as "one of the best funded officials." Money was portrayed as the reason he survived the recall election.
DeleteJustine, like Jackie I also agree with you on how you mentioned money was the biggest factor in the upcoming election. It seems that in today's economy if you have money then you have power, just as Jackie said. For example, a big use for money is advertising so you can get your name out there as a candidate. I agree with you when you said that whether Wisconsin fluctuates right or left is not the primary issue for the upcoming election, but it is indeed an issue that should not be pushed off to the side. I feel this way because it is a possibility that Wisconsin, an original democratic state, could be won over by the Republicans which could bring this presidential election to an extremely close call. I do agree that money is the issue at hand with the election. As Jackie said, money was the reason Walker survived the recall election and money will play a vital role with whoever is elected president.
DeleteI also agree that finances is a prominent factor in the elections. Money can buy supporters and expand campaigning, giving the person with more money, an upper hand in winning. And as everyone above has stated, money equals power in a capitalist country.
Delete-Kaila Hammon
Recalls are a vital tool in our democratic system. They are too be used if an elected official makes an egregious decision that will either hurt the public greatly or goes against the majority of voters' opinions. Also, if the elected is no longer upholding their campaign platform and have done a 180* turn, a recall is appropriate. They voted on that person on these premises so by switching, the elected is no longer the figure the public put their hope in. If recalls did not exist, the only way to get a person out of office would be an impeachment. Since impeachment is available only when an elected official breaks the law it is an ineffective tool in removing politicians gone a stray since they are smart enough to use the loopholes to avoid removal. Recalls are a crucial way to maintain democracy so voters can take responsibility for their actions, and that's what a recall does. It is their one chance to ask for a redo.
ReplyDeleteWalker was able to avoid recall because the opinion of the majority was miscalculated by whoever began the recall. The percentage of citizens that Governor Walker had supporting him is displayed by how much money he had in his campaign. Recall campaigns are primarly based on money brought in privately collected, and people will put there money where they are interested. People must have thought Governor Walker was a better candidate over Representative Barrett because he had $27 million more brought in. Another factor into his victory is what has been happening with Democrats around the nation. Many Democrats are getting a reputation for not being proactive. The public is getting tired of not going anywhere, and that's what this decision shows. Even the other 4 officials up for recall won. It's shocking enough for 1 official to win but 4 is sending a message. It's not a coincidence that these officials are all from the same party. The citizens who were questioning Democrats may have been more likely to be swayed helping Governor Walker to win the recall with a wider margin than the first time he won the position.
The 2012 Presidential Election will be affected by this event, but not the choice that will be made in November. The only indicator that comes from this recall is the possibility of having more swing states this time. Wisconsin is originally a democratic state, but now that 4 Republicans won their recalls, any Republican candidate has a greater chance of winning Wisconsin if they can campaign hard enough. For example, some questioning Democrats may vote for Romney because of the fact that he is Republican. I'm not saying that this will be the case for everyone, just for votes that may be unhappy with their party and uneducated about all the candidates. The same thing could happen for President Obama with questioning Republicans. This race could be a tighter race than previous races have been with Presidents that were running for reelection.
Just a side note, has anyone else noticed that certain media sources are no longer calling Barack Obama President Obama, but Mr. Obama?
I like your comment about how recall elections may be implemented if an elected offical takes a 180 turn and no longer uphold their campaign platform. An elected official must implement the same policies that they supported during their campaign, which is the reason they were elected. However, I believe that it can damage the system of Democracy if the voters execissively recall elected officials only on the basis of certain policies that they don't agree with. There must be some mid-ground for a basis of recall elections.
DeleteAnd yes, I have noticed Obama being referred to as "Mr. Obama" instead of "President Obama."
.
I agree completely. I think that the mid-ground, or preventive measure, is the petition that needs to be filed. In order to initiate a recall, the petition needs to be completed with 540,000 signatures compared to 50,000 needed to run initially. This varies on the position and the state but the difference is still significant. I feel that this measure keeps the system of recall from being abused. In Governor Walker's case, the number of signatures collected was twice as much as what we needed, proving that voters had a problem with getting rid of collective bargaining, something that has been in the Wisconsin system for a long time. However, there must have been more voters that didn't sign the petition who didn't agree at all.
DeleteI agree that recalls help maintain democracy. If the people get to vote for the officials, they should also be able to let their voices be heard when the official is going back on a promise. Like you said, recall should be used when an official is not following through with what they promised in their campaign. I'm not sure if I necessarily agree that this event will affect the November election. The Republican Party may have been favored in this situation, but a big factor was the power of Republicans. Also, many people may support most Democratic ideals, but they also may support certain Republican ideals, as well. I think this recall election just showed the power that the Republican Party has in this situation.
DeleteI believe that democracy itself creates these "180 turns" that you refer to. Naturally, candidates use any measures to appeal to as many groups in order to win a election. Promises are made that can't be held. This can be seen in President Obama's tenure. However, since these officials aren't legally bound to their statements, I believe there is not reasonable justifications to support a recall if an elected person does not follow through with their agendas. Furthermore, how would a "180 turn" be determined and by who? I agree with Jake that a mid-ground is needed, but I think it is the responsibility of the informed voter to support the candidate that they think is most likely to implement their notions.
DeleteI want to focus on the part of your post where it was stated that you believe their is a correlation between campaign spending and the winner, I too see this correlation and believe it's true. However it must be understood that the majority of donations do not come from ordinary citizens. Thats why when you say "People must have thought Governor Walker was a better candidate over Representative (Mayor not rep.) Barrett because he had $27 million more brought in," I want to make it clear that the majority of his sources for funding were not Wisconsin citizens, of course some were, but $38 million of that total came from out of state sources. For example, he recieved $1.3 million from bussiness associates of Koch Industries for this recall election alone.
DeleteHenry, that's a good point. In state recalls, it would probably be more appropriate if the money was only allowed to come from in-state sources, since they will be the ones voting. Austin, wouldn't it be fair to say that the change can be determined by the voters? They are the ones that where sold on the candidate in the first place. If the candidate makes decisions consistently and follow through on actions that diverge completely from their original platform, that could possibly be grounds for a recall. They've abused the power the voters have given them as leaders because the voters put their trust in them to better their communities. Even if candidates do make these changes, it's not something voters should have to stand for.
DeleteRecall elections are only appropriate when the government official in question has violated their terms of office or have committed a crime. As elected officials, they hold certain responsibilities and an oath that must be upheld throughout their term, and if they violate these, then there is enough reason to hold a recall election. A representative that simply does not hold the same views on certain policies as does a political party is not enough ground for that official to be recalled, such as the Wisconsin recall.
ReplyDeleteI believe Scott Walker from Wisconsin was able to avoid being recalled due to the conservative republican voters who supported Walker’s decision to “cut collective bargaining rights for most public workers.” Walker also had a greater amount of funds to support himself, $45.6 million as opposed to his opponent’s $17.9 million. There was also no official misconduct on Walker’s part, which doesn’t grant a drastic need for a recall election in the first place.
The Wisconsin recall election results will most likely not have major implications for the November election, as the recall reflected state issues and not necessarily a factor for electing either Obama or Romney. However, the elections were a major blow to the Democrats who wanted the recall to succeed, and Democratic politicians should not take the Democrats in the state for granted.
"Official misconduct" is only needed for an impeachment. If there's reason to believe that a representative does not accurately represent his entire constituency; for example, the polls saying that this recall had good chance of success; then that is grounds for a recall election.
DeleteI agree Jake that the Wisconsin recall was largely unnecessary. It only prevented the state from progress. If these recalls are repeatedly held simply because a percentage of the public disagrees with the direction of the party in power, government will run in circles. Perhaps the reason that Walker was able to garner so much more funds was simply because of more support.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI completely agree with your first paragraph. A recall, though not the same as an impeachment, should still be treated similarly. Opinion differences are what makes our country's democracy unique.
Delete-Kaila Hammon
I would like to back up Trace in saying that the grounds that Jake mentioned he thinks are appropriate for recall would usually be those that would be necessary to impeach and bring an elected official to trial. I spent this past week at Boys State and at a point there was talk of impeaching the State Treasurer even though he had committed no crime, we as an electorate had simply discovered that he was not fit for the job, and I realize now that in that situation, petition for recall would have been more appropriate. Also I want to comment back to what Austin posted, to say that this recall was unnecessary is very debatable. I agree it is regrettable that the state had to throw away so much money to simply see the same outcome, however it must be considered that by LAW the citizens of a district or state can initiate a recall if a petition is signed by 1/4 of the voters in that election. In this instance, the number of petition signatures far exceeded the number necessary, this was a clear mandate from the public that their elected official was not doing the best job representing him and if they had not done anything, he may never have got the message and may have continued down a path that was destructive for these people. It seems to me that you are weighing this as simply a partisan issue, that it was only some democrats trying to revolt against the governor because he's a republican and they don't like it. I want to point out that the people that signed the recall position encompassed the electorate from both parties, and included teachers, firefighters, and police officers, not because they disagreed with the principles of the party in power, but rather because they felt like they were getting shafted by the decisions made by their Governor, who many of them voted for when he was originally elected in 2010.
Delete*them not him and *petition not position, sorry.
DeleteIt's easy to see that everyone has a difference in opinions and what one person might see as a fit and just leader, another person may not. As Jenny Beth Martin (co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots) stated, "Recall was never meant to be used just because you don’t like the way the other side is governing." I believe that it is only appropriate for citizens to engage in the recall of an elected official when they have committed a crime or tyrannous acts, such as governing in a harsh/cruel manner or without any restrictions. Scott Walker of Wisconsin was able to avoid recall simply because of his band of supportive conservative Republican voters. With the help of his conservative voters he was able to take a financial advantage over his opponent, Mr. Barrett, of about $27 million. It also seems that more Republicans than Democrats are taking action, resulting in victorious Republicans in the last four recall elections. I believe that the implications of the 2012 election are that the people of the United States are either going to want to stick with Obama and have faith that his policies are going to follow through for the good of the country or put their faith in a new president and start with a clean slate, hoping he will put the nation in better hands. In Wisconsin, it seems that Republicans are prevailing which could result in a Republican candidate winning over an originally democratic state. I feel that this is could be a model for the presidential election of 2012 and the nation choosing to change from something original, such as Obama, to something new, such as Romney.
ReplyDeleteRemoving an elected official for committing a crime is called an impeachment. The purpose of a recall is ensure that a representative accurately represents his entire constituency, not just his own party.
DeleteImpeachments are initiated by felony crimes. Even then, it's not a guarantee because the courts have to decide the result. With a recall it's completely up to the voters. So if the voters feel a non-federal crime was committed and the official should be removed, recall would most likely be the tool to use since the courts would not be involved, leaving all the power to the voters. Brielle, I agree with you when you said that Governor Walker was reelected because of all the money he had from supporters. However I do not believe that was the only factor into his victory. I think one big influence on the voters decisions was the fact that this was the first controversial decision Scott Walker made. He didn't have a history of making any other decisions that the public felt would hurt them.
DeleteThank you both for your your responses, they do help a lot! I do agree on how you said another major influence was this being Walker's first controversial decision, that does play a big role in his victory along with money from his supporters.
DeleteWalker did mention in one of his speeches, "Tonight, we tell Wisconsin, we tell our country, and we tell people all across the globe that voters really do want leaders who stand up and make the tough decisions.” When I read this I didn't really take into consideration that this was Walker's first controversial decision he made which influenced the voters so, thank you for pointing that out to me!
DeleteI agree entirely with what is being said about the difference between when recall is appropriate and when impeachment is appropriate, and appreciate that it was distinguished that impeachment doesnt necessarily mean removal. I would just like to interject into this and comment that saying ,"this," (by which I assume you mean the stripping of rights from over 175,000 public workers)is the only, or the first controversial decision that Walker has made is not entirely true. Although it is subjective whether something is "controversial" or not, it is true that large numbers of people wanted Scott Walker out for a number of controversial decisions. To list a few... He cut $1.6 billion dollars in funding for public education, and $500 million from medical assistance, he raised taxes on seniors and working families $70 million, and gave $2 billion in tax cuts to corporations and the upper class, he disenfranchised tens of thousands of voters by passing one of the most restrictive voter ID laws in the nation, and attempted to repeal clean water laws, nearly putting the state in violation of the federal Clean Water Act. He hiked tuition for college students by cutting the funds that go towards the schools, including $250 million in cuts from the U of Wisconsin system alone. The list goes on and on, and whether you agree with these decisions or not it cannot be argued that they are not controversial.
DeleteThe actions listed that aren't necessarily uncommon. They are controversial, but not unprecedented like the decision to eliminate collective bargaining. However, all of the previous decisions seemed to fuel the fire. It's a great thing to keep in mind when justifying the recall.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that a recall is appropriate when an elected official has committed a crime or abused their power. The whole point of a democracy is that the people are given power over their elected officials. Elected officials are public servants, so they need to keep in mind the best interests of the public. No one should have to question the decisions of their public officials and not get a say in the matter. In one poll, 6 out of 10 people believe recall elections should only be held in the case of official misconduct. I agree with this because the process should only be used for big issues, not just every time someone disagrees with a decision. Walker was able to survive the recall because Republicans have control over Wisconsin’s state capital, even though the majority of the state is Democratic. Walker’s reputation is growing and he is very well funded. He was able to maintain his position with his reputation and connections. Other public officials tend to believe this recall election is no implication for the presidential election, which I agree with. Big corporations tend to favor the Republican Party, so Republicans have more control. However, this does not imply anything about the presidential election.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI like how you referred to elected officials as "public servants." I also agree with you on how recall should be used only for big issues. People do tend to get worked up over little things and everyone is going to have differing opinions on the actions of elected officials, but if they are doing what is in the best interests of the public then they are doing their job and there is no need for a recall (just as you said).
DeleteI agree with a majority of what you said, Jackie, particularly on mentioning that the only reason Walker was able to survive the recall was his manipulation of the state capital and not the actual state majority. However, I do think that while this particular instance will not completely sway the election, one can't ignore the lobbyists which have transformed into those on major television networks which have lead to the drastic Tea Parties. Based on what I've seen from these marches, the Republican lobbyists and icons in media truly have had a major impact on the Republican party, increasing their anger to provoke political discrepancies such as this. I fear that this upcoming election and those that will follow, are going to become more and more corrupted and swayed by hype.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAt a cost of $18 million, the only reason a recall election should be held is under the instance that an elected official has committed a crime in office or abused their power. Under no circumstances should it be used as a tool to remove an official who upholds the very platforms they were elected upon. The National Conference of State Legislatures highlights this, saying a recall "undermines the principle of electing good officials and giving them a chance to govern until the next election, and that it can lead to abuses by well-financed special interest groups". As Jenny Beth Martin puts it, a recall should be held simply because a minority disagrees with what the elected office is performing. There is a reason that the founding fathers of the country implemented a system of representative democracy- it permits the most progress for society. When democracy overextends, a continuous cycle of elections and recalls will ultimately hinder the advancement of the public.
ReplyDeleteScott Walker, who acted exactly as he promised during his campaign, was needlessly recalled. He assured the public that he would balance the state's deficit; developing a frugal plan for spending in his state's government by specifically cutting government employee benefits was his mode of action. He noticed the inefficiency in the financial plans of government spending and acted accordingly. As Governor Daniels of Indiana said in support of Walker's actions, public worker unions have a negative effect on society and that, "Money is being devoured by very high salaries, almost bulletproof job protection and huge pensions". His platforms obviously held favor in the time of election or he would not of been voted upon. Unfortunately, the state of Wisconsin wasted $18 million as opposition put pressure on the state for a recall.
I don't believe that this failed recall of Walker has any implications for the presidential election in Wisconsin. President Obama still maintains a favorable 51%-44% margin in the state that is notoriously blue. Rather, it simply establishes that there is a growing demand for decreased spending in government. When the economy is struggling as it is now, the public apparently want to see government tighten the belt alongside its citizens.
I agree that recall elections can allow democracy to overextend, giving a group of people the power to recall their elected official for the wrong reasons. In order for a recall election to take place, there must be a system in place to verify that a recall is necessary and justified. It is unnecessary to waste millions of dollars to attempt to remove an elected official when there is insufficient reason to do so. You also mentioned a good point about how the system must be wary of well-financed special interest groups that will abuse recall elections in order to remove government officials and replace them with their own politicians. These are factors that an implemented system can take into account in order to determine whether recall elections are necessary, in order to avoid unnecessary elections.
DeleteThe function of a recall is misunderstood by many. I dont think that recall is the proper route if an elected official has clearly violated a law, because for that an impeachment would be the best and most assured way to remove them. Recall should be initiated, and usually is initiated when the people of a district or a state feel that the person that they elected no longer represents them, that they have crossed them or gone against their word. After all, elected officials are not voted in to command and to control, but rather to be the "arm" of the people, to get what they want done and to BE what they believe. In the case of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, there were many that felt that he had betrayed them when he cut collective bargaining rights for unions, and spent money in a way that they felt was contrary to public interest. So they began a petition for recall, and were successful. However in the recall vote, Walker still won, this shows that he still does in fact carry the support of the majority of Wisconsin voters (educated or not) in his actions. A counter example would be this past November when President of the Arizona Senate Russell Pearce was recalled for authoring of controversial immigration legislation, (among other things) and actually was not voted back in to office, demonstrating that the people of his district felt that he no longer represented their beliefs. This was the first ever recall of a State Legislator in Arizona, and just goes to show that it can happen anywhere, anytime. This also shows how it is more likely to be successful on a local rather than statewide level.
ReplyDeleteScott Walker was able to hold his position and dodge this recall vote for several reasons. One is that statewide recalls for governors and other positions are almost never successful. The reason for that being that it is very difficult to convince people across an entire state that they voted against their own benefit when there is only a specific sector that is really pulling for recall and really believes in it. Even with all the national attention that this event recieved, I believe many voters still went into the polls uneducated, and when one candidate,(Walker), spends $45.6 million on campaigning, to the opposing $17.9 million, there is a clear advantage to the one who has got his name out there more. Also when citizens have already seen their Governor in action and have known him, they feel more comfortable with him in office than an almost unknown outsider. Although Tom Barrett served as mayor of Milwuakee, he still did not even have nearly as much publicity as Walker.
As far as suggestions that this overwhelming victory on the side of Walker previews the results in the presidential election, I don't believe that this indicates that Romney will capture the historically "Blue" Wisconsin. Polls say that 18% of Walkers voters plan to vote for Obama in November, and the president leads in other polls their as well. To me what this election is indicative of is that while many of Wisconsin's citizens were outraged by the Governor's actions, the majority still felt comfortable enough with their Governor to keep him in. It also shows that money is really a determining factor in who wins, the $38 million from out of state funding towards Walker's campaign can't have hurt his chances. ;)
I agree the money helped Walker win because he got his name out there but I don't believe that people vote for who they see more but who they agree with. This election shows that people don't support the bickering between parties and although they planned to vote for Obama in November 18% of them put that aside and refused to support a recall based on disagreement in policy. I think that stat is encouraging.
DeleteReading your second paragraph, I can wholeheartedly agree with your opinion that many voters were uneducated when it came to WHY Walker's policies have become controversial and why he has raised so much attention. I believe it is vital for voters to consider all of the motives for which Walker based his decisions, as well as the outcomes. Many of the decisions Walker has made regarding finances (taxes, budget cuts, reduction of collective bargaining for Wisconsin employees, ect.) were in order to reduce the state debt. I believe his motive for many of the decisions he made was to eliminate debt in order to re-invest. Stop spending money now so you have more to spend in the future - which of course sounds great in theory. I believe that Walker was petitioned for recall, however, because his methods of reducing state debt and state budgets were extremely detrimental to the Wisconsin people and their communities. They were more harmful than helpful, as you point out in your firs paragraph. It is difficult to speculate whether Walker was elected (again) because of the people's faith that his methods will indeed bolster the Wisconsin economy as planned (and it very well may), or because they were unable to make an educated decision. I think the real question is: did Walker's goal of boosting the economy cloud his ability to properly serve the people; or is it true that in order to establish the economy, sacrifice must precede benefit. As you said, publicity plays a large role in any election, this being no exception.
DeleteCan't disagree with that ^ all true statements. And the answer to that question is difficult to say, because it is definitely subjective and will vary from person to person. And Spencer my point is that many times in elections the voters have very little information, leading them to a conclusion that they agree with one person but in actuality if they were to go a little deeper they would find that they don't. That is why I say uneducated, I dont mean that they didnt attend school, but rather that they are ignorant of many facts, which I suppose is a factor in every election, not just this one, and a problem that I don't expect to see disappear anytime soon.
DeleteI believe it is important for citizens to engage in the recall of an elected official but it should only be done when an official has committed a crime or abused his or her power. Simply recalling someone because you don't share in their beliefs is unreasonable. An entire state or country will never have the same opinions and views. I believe Mr. Walker dodged the recall because of the funding he was receiving. (NYtimes) The $45.6 million dollars in donations might have swayed people in thinking Walker had changed and wouldn't make further union cuts. Also, 52%-47% of voters approved of recent changes in state law according to the USA Today article. As for the up-coming elections, it seems as though Wisconsin will be competitive in voting either Romney or Obama. At this point in time, it's a little unpredictable.
ReplyDelete-Kaila Hammon
I believe that the recall process is a valuable right, and tool, that citizens of every state should exercise with great caution. It should not be viewed as a way for one political party to remove an office holder simply because he/she is the affiliate of another party, for it is no secret that Democrats and Republicans WILL disagree in many areas of the political spectrum. Rather, recall should be seen as a way for the MAJORITY (both Democrat and Republican) to voice the common belief that a specific office holder has not met the requirements bestowed upon him after the initial elections. If the office holder under scrutiny has failed to represent the best interests of those responsible for his/her election, their duties should be challenged, and it should be up to those same citizens to use the democratic recall process to deem the office holder fit or unfit for office. Walker's recall election was no exception. Protests erupted due to Walker's approach to state budget cuts, which involved the STRICT reduction of collective bargaining by the state's public employees. The recall process was initiated, and Walker proved to still be in the favor of the majority (we can ignore the fundraising controversy for now). Had Walker committed a crime, however, I find impeachment to be the only course of action.
ReplyDeleteNow the fundraising aspect enters the picture. Generally, being that Walker is a Republican politician, he is to be in favor of the rich corporate leaders and business owners. Consequently, Walker had nearly limitless campaign funding, whereas his opponent, Democrat Tom Barrett, probably was not a fortunate. I agree with the "New York Times" writers Monica Davey and Jeff Zeleny that Walker's ability to fund-raise large amounts of money for his recall election certainly gave him a strong financial advantage over Barrett. Aside from this, I believe that Walker was "re-elected" due to the belief of many that he still held the best interests of the state of Wisconsin close to him.
As for the election in November, I feel that this ordeal has raised many eyebrows. David Horsey of the "Los Angeles Times" uses Wisconsin statistics to show that the voters of Wisconsin still heavily favor President Obama over his opponent Romney. The recall election of Walker proves testament to the power of the Republican voice in Wisconsin, however. Personally, I don't believe that Obama will fail to capture Wisconsin in November, but it would be wise of Romney to keep a vigilant eye on the potential winds of change brewing in the "blue" state of Wisconsin.
I don't believe Scott Walker won because he supports big business and is Republican look at this article in the "Los Angeles Times" http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/05/nation/na-money5 from 2008 it shows that Obama raised "$265 million to McCain's $90 million" in the last presidential election on June 5. That is a far greater differential than Scott Walker and Tom Barrett so clearly it is not about the party but willingness to donate and this is not the first election to be altered by money and it affects both parties.
DeleteI apologize if I was not specific enough in my post. I did not say that that Walker won because he is Republican or because he simply has a strong financial backing. I did say in my first paragraph that recall should not be based on political affiliations, and continued to point out that Walker was kept in office because a majority of Wisconsin citizens (both Republican AND Democratic; as statistics show that many Democrats were indeed in favor of Walker) believed he still held Wisconsin's best interests close to him.
DeleteYes, I do believe, in agreement with many of the major news sites, that Walker DID have the financial advantage over Barrett, that much is fact. I never said, however, that he won solely because of his fund-raising. If you notice the last sentence of my second paragraph, you will have read that, "I believe Walker was 're-elected' due to the belief of many that he still held the best interests of the state of Wisconsin close to him."
I also do not understand how the 2008 presidential election has anything to do with this recall election either. Yes, Obama was able to raise more money. He clearly had the financial advantage over his opponent, just as Walker did in Wisconsin. How Obama raised his funds is a completely different story, though. I was simply using the "USA Today" video that shows how Walker has connections with many billionaire businessmen/women who were donating vast amounts of money to Walker's funds (which IS the definition of fund-raising). Walker was able to fund more money, but he won because he garnered more votes. Are the two related? Yes, I believe firmly one has influence over the other. Of course it is not the only reason, but it sure is a contributing factor (read the "New York Times" article).
Also, Obama won the 2008 election for FAR more many reasons than just funds (in my opinion).
DeleteIn my opinion the recall election, although valuable in certain cases, was terribly abused. The only reason that the recall was used because of a disagreement on issues and not because of any illegal activities. This sets a dangerous precedent that it is okay to recall leaders if you lose an election. On The Daily Show with John Stewart they asked one of the leaders of the Democrats who supported the recall why they don't just have petitions for a recall outside voting booths so if they lose they already have the signatures. The man responded by saying the law requires waiting a year. Although it was poised as a joke,the sad thing is that means someone considered doing that beyond the comedians on The Daily Show. The terms for officials are there for a reason and by allowing frivolous recalls it ruins the normal elections.
ReplyDeleteWith that being said I believe that Scott Walker won by a larger margin because people realized that the 18 million dollars were being wasted and didn't support it. Sure he did spend more money but he had already won once before so it is impossible to say, definitively, that is the reason he won. In November people will be making an entirely different decision because it is no longer about if the election is valid but the candidate and the "U.S.A. Today" shows Obama is leading. However the fact that Ed Gillespie, a senior advisory to Romney says "it's in play" in the same article may open the doors to more money spent in the state that makes this state a battlegrounds come November.
The only comments I really have are that you may want to check the first link and read the difference between recall and impeachment. If an official were to do something illegal, impeachment would probably be more appropriate. Recall is more for political device, while impeachment is more of a legal process. If the majority believes that an official is not serving the people, even if he has not broken the law, they can still move to remove the him/her. So I wouldn't go as far to say that the recall election was an abuse of a right by the Wisconsin people, because many felt that Walker's policies were harmful, as many were affected. If enough people were willing to vote in favor of a recall election, than it was probably necessary to have an election to see just how many still supported Walker. Walker has been at the center of controversy for quite some time, and has sparks many protests involving thousands of people. It took the recall election to prove that Walker still had support of many, which in turn proved that he should remain in office. It was impossible to tell until the election, though.
Delete