Could Republican hopes be dashed in California?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
Paying large sums of money to collect signiatures is not exactly a precedent that one should want to set. 13% of the voters are going to be deeply unhappy regardless of who's in office, and with regulations being what they are, I'm pretty sure that if I really, really wanted, I could get my name onto that recall election ballot (this would be really, really sad).

All it take is paying $3500 and filling out a one page form. Speaking of getting your name on the ballot... So far 58 people have filled to run for the recall and up to 100 people are expected to run before all is said and done. Theoretically it is possible that Davis could lose with 49% of the vote and the person who wins the recall replaciment election could gain office with something like 19% of the vote.

Does replacing a person who got 49% of the vote with a person who got 19% of the vote make sense? won't that person be unpopular and himself be subject to a recall? I'm seeing a never ending slippery slope here. This sort of crap usually is confined to banana Republics not the Wealthiest place on Earth.

The Republicans are screwing our democracy in their thirst to win no matter what the cost.

[Victor Galis]

All it take is paying $3500 and filling out a one page form.

And 65 signiatures. But the really, really sad part, is that at the moment, I'm not really a California resident. As far as I can tell though, I could register to vote and run at virtually the same time.

[Japher]

I know a guy who is going to run just to put it on his resumee

[Dinner]

California has same day registration which was put into law by latino activists in an attempt to help get illegal immigraints to vote. Sure, it's illegal to have noncitizens vote but the Democratic party figured all of the illegal votes would be for them so they look the other way.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Japher
I know a guy who is going to run just to put it on his resumee

I'd run just to write a book about it, but I'm going back to Georgia in two weeks (Damn, why couldn't they do this next year, I'd actually take a semester off from school to run then.)

[Stefu]

If they have 100 candidates, wouldn't that make for a damnably big ballot?

[Japher]

Yup, seeing as it HAS to be printed in every language ever spoken by man.

[SnowFire]

Oerdin: The no allegations of corruption are irrelevant. The recall merely means "I don't like this governor, let's replace him." No wrongdoing needs be proven. Perhaps you're thinking of impeachment?

Davis is arguing that a new election would not be appropriate since there is a duly elected legal successor pre the state's successor law.

I'm not a fan of the recall, but this is ridiculous. They're claiming that when the progressives asked for the ability to recall hideous politicians, they didn't want the ability to recall hideous politicians with a Lieutenant Governor? That's clearly not the intent.

[Victor Galis]

Oerdin: The no allegations of corruption are irrelevant. The recall merely means "I don't like this governor, let's replace him." No wrongdoing needs be proven. Perhaps you're thinking of impeachment?

We're talking about the state becomming ungovernable here. If you can remove a politician just because 13% of the people who voted last election really hate him, and enough people can be found who at least mildly dislike him: a) who would want the job? b) who would do what's right and not just what happens to be popular at the moment? and c) why would any governor not spend every day of his term doing fundraising and campaining? We might as well just have an election every 6 months.

I'm not a fan of the recall, but this is ridiculous. They're claiming that when the progressives asked for the ability to recall hideous politicians, they didn't want the ability to recall hideous politicians with a Lieutenant Governor? That's clearly not the intent.

I don't think the progressives wanted to legalize toppling the government for personal gain. That's essentially what the guy who funded the recall is trying to do.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's a loop hole and you know it Imran. Even if you can't bring yourself to admite it.

Yes, it's a loop hole to say that you can't recall if there is a Lieutenant Governor.

Snowfire is correct, the recall is to get rid of hideous politicians, corruption does not matter one bit.

Does replacing a person who got 49% of the vote with a person who got 19% of the vote make sense?

So you want to Republicans to try to change the law in the middle of an election? Oh right, you are a Democrat, I guess that would sound correct to you .

(PS, this doesn't apply to all Democrats, just Oerdin )

The Republicans are screwing our democracy in their thirst to win no matter what the cost.

You mean the Republican are utilizing your democracy in order to get of an odious Governor who's approval is hovering around 22%? After all, recalls are specially tailored to get rid of horrible politicans without having to wait until the next election.

[DinoDoc]

Out of curiosity how many Cali governors have faced recall efforts? Given that this is the first time the effort has born fruit in the state, I'd have to say that Davis has been particularly incompetent at his job.

[Imran Siddiqui]

We're talking about the state becomming ungovernable here. If you can remove a politician just because 13% of the people who voted last election really hate him, and enough people can be found who at least mildly dislike him: a) who would want the job? b) who would do what's right and not just what happens to be popular at the moment? and c) why would any governor not spend every day of his term doing fundraising and campaining? We might as well just have an election every 6 months.

It's hilarious that the Democrats are portraying this to occur now with every governor who ever wins! HELLO?! This man has a 22% approval rating. Not many people are so incompetant to have that low of an approval. Even his own party members hate him.

Recalls only come around once in a while. The last successful recall was North Dakota in the 1910, but you don't hear about governors getting recalled every other year in North Dakota do you? NO, because this is unique.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Stefu
If they have 100 candidates, wouldn't that make for a damnably big ballot?

Welcome to the crappy Republican twilight zone.

Normally there is 2-3 candidates but the qualifications to be a recall candidate are so low every tom, ****, and hairy is now a candidate.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Out of curiosity how many Cali governors have faced recall efforts? Given that this is the first time the effort has born fruit in the state, I'd have to say that Davis has been particularly incompetent at his job.

This is the only time the law has ever been used. Like I said the Republicans have dug this up and are risking the future of our state simply because they smell a political oppurtunity. It is shameless that our states political stability is being put at risk by a bunch of sore losers.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Dug it up?

It's a valid law on the books. IIRC, just about every governor has had some recall votes against him, but never even close enough to get to this point. Just shows you how unpopular Davis is.