• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we be allowed to recall congressman?

Should we be allowed to recall congressman?

  • Yes, we should be allowed to hold a popular vote whenever we want and recall them

    Votes: 6 31.6%

  • Yes, we should be allowed to repeal them at special preset elections

    Votes: 3 15.8%

  • Yes, we should implement a form of accountability other than voting them out of office prematurely

    Votes: 3 15.8%

  • Yes, we should have an electronic election via cell phones or the internet whenever we want

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Yes, we should have a protest, and if "x" number of people sign the congressman is recalled

    Votes: 3 15.8%

  • No, however we should implement some form of accountability other than removing them from office

    Votes: 2 10.5%

  • No, under no circumstance should we recall a congressman

    Votes: 6 31.6%

  • Other (please explain)

    Votes: 1 5.3%
  • Total voters
    19
digsbe

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,630
Reaction score
14,981
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Should the people be allowed to cut short a congressman's term and recall him if his/her district no longer supports them? There are many congressman (the majority in my opinion) that run their campaign on talking points but don't deliver when they are sent to Washington. Congressman are supposed to represent their constituents and are servants to the people (not the other way around). There are many who are upset with candidates running on political platforms and doing the opposite when they are sent to Washington, their campaigns are a lie and they'll do anything to get that seat of power they are campaigning for. So I ask this question, should we be able to hold our elected congressman accountable to their constituents by being able to vote them out of office before their term is over? Should we have some way of removing them from power if they betray their constituents? I know many conservatives who are upset with RINOs and many Democrats who run on conservative values but betray them when they win the election. I don't know of any liberals who were sent to congress and betrayed liberal constituents (although I am sure there are some). Essentially, we see more and more loyalty to party ties and less and less loyalty to the people and the constitution. I believe we should have something in place to keep the congressman accountable to the people and not to their party. However, what method we should use I am unsure of. What do you all think?
 
I don't think so. What you are effectively talking about is a vote of no confidence, which exists primarily in parliamentary forms of government, which holds irregular elections.

While Congress may be unpopular from time to time, it is at least stable. It prevents constituents from voting based on the spurs of the moment. We have elections on a regular basis and have so since our government was formed. I don't want to muck that up.

If constituents are really against an incumbent, they'll vote them out of office in the next election.

Instead, I think all Representatives and Senators should be forced to have an ombudsman who stays at the Congressman's office in their home district or state and serve as a go-between for the Congressman and for the Congressman's constituency. This way, while our Congressmen are away in Washington, D.C., our constituents can maintain their pipeline to their federal representatives.
 
But what about those that outright lie to voters in order to get a seat? Many run on false principals and essentially were elected to misrepresent the people. If our views are supposed to be reflected by our congressman shouldn't we hold them accountable in some form? Essentially if we vote someone in who lied through their whole campaign we are stuck with them for a full term while the congressman can vote and have his term's "job security." In my district we have a retiring Democrat, and he doesn't represent out views because he is retiring and decides to vote along party lines. Should we not be able to hold them accountable with the power we give them?
 
I want to say yes, but I think it is fraught with too many problems. Congressional approval rates can be influenced by things outside of an actual congressman's control. Senator's are only there max 6 years, rep's 2 years. I think simply voting them out at the end of their term is good enough.

The more I think about it, the more potential for abuse I see. The party not in power in a state would constantly be pushing for recalls at every opportunity. The cost and disruption would just be too great.
 
Redress said:
I want to say yes, but I think it is fraught with too many problems. Congressional approval rates can be influenced by things outside of an actual congressman's control. Senator's are only there max 6 years, rep's 2 years. I think simply voting them out at the end of their term is good enough.

The more I think about it, the more potential for abuse I see. The party not in power in a state would constantly be pushing for recalls at every opportunity. The cost and disruption would just be too great.
Click to expand...

True, but what about having national reviews of congressman and possibly giving them a timetable to represent the people? Essentially what I am wanting to prevent is congressman who run on one thing and forget about it when they are in Washington and having people be stuck with them for a full term. I think congressman aren't accountable to the people and that's why we see so much corruption and partisanship in D.C.
 
digsbe said:
True, but what about having national reviews of congressman and possibly giving them a timetable to represent the people? Essentially what I am wanting to prevent is congressman who run on one thing and forget about it when they are in Washington and having people be stuck with them for a full term. I think congressman aren't accountable to the people and that's why we see so much corruption and partisanship in D.C.
Click to expand...

They have to run for regular re-election. That is accountability.
 
Redress said:
They have to run for regular re-election. That is accountability.
Click to expand...

But what if they get bribes and special deals or are promised appointments for voting in a partisan way? Plus they have job security until their next election which is years away. What I am getting at is that people vote for them and they betray their voters, there should be a way to keep them accountable outside of re-election every couple of years.
 
digsbe said:
But what if they get bribes and special deals or are promised appointments for voting in a partisan way? Plus they have job security until their next election which is years away. What I am getting at is that people vote for them and they betray their voters, there should be a way to keep them accountable outside of re-election every couple of years.
Click to expand...

Bribes and provable corruption is a separate issue, and should it be provable, should result not just removal from office, but full prosecution.
 
My god a congressmen only serves for 2 freakin years, by the time the legal process went through and new vote called for the district the next election cycle would have arrived.


For senators I could see the value but not for congressmen
 
Redress said:
Bribes and provable corruption is a separate issue, and should it be provable, should result not just removal from office, but full prosecution.
Click to expand...
I agree, but there are "legal" ways to bribe someone. Like behind closed doors promising a candidate an ambassadorship or a cabinet appointment if they vote a certain way. We may not have to remove them from office, but what I want to do is have them accountable to the people? What about the idea of having the state voters vote on a piece of legislation that could essentially null their congressman's vote if he is voting against the people?

Lord Tammerlain said:
My god a congressmen only serves for 2 freakin years, by the time the legal process went through and new vote called for the district the next election cycle would have arrived.


For senators I could see the value but not for congressmen
Click to expand...

My vote is geared to all congressman and senators. I should have added "senators" to my OP, sorry about that. Regardless, isn't it still wrong even if it's just a 2 year term? They run on one thing but vote another way. We have corruption because they aren't held accountable to the people they are to serve.
 
digsbe said:
I agree, but there are "legal" ways to bribe someone. Like behind closed doors promising a candidate an ambassadorship or a cabinet appointment if they vote a certain way. We may not have to remove them from office, but what I want to do is have them accountable to the people? What about the idea of having the state voters vote on a piece of legislation that could essentially null their congressman's vote if he is voting against the people?



My vote is geared to all congressman and senators. I should have added "senators" to my OP, sorry about that. Regardless, isn't it still wrong even if it's just a 2 year term? They run on one thing but vote another way. We have corruption because they aren't held accountable to the people they are to serve.
Click to expand...

The 2 year term would most likely be up or very close to being up by the time the process to recall and replace the congressmen was completed

First you would have a petition with enough signatures to force a vote on whether to recall the congressmen or not. Then you would have to have the actual vote on whether or not to recall them or not. Then you would have to have the vote on who to replace the congressmen.

I couldnt see it being done within 18 month, leaving 6 months of being on the job for the congressmen.

It may be a nice thing to be able to due, but it would be rather impracticle for congress, but viable for the senate
 
I voted in favor of x number of folk.
However what I would like to see is every elected person wear an explosive collar around their neck, should 75% of the electorate disagree with what they are doing or not doing and express their disapproval by pressing a button, that elected person head would vanish.
 
digsbe said:
Should the people be allowed to cut short a congressman's term and recall him if his/her district no longer supports them? There are many congressman (the majority in my opinion) that run their campaign on talking points but don't deliver when they are sent to Washington. Congressman are supposed to represent their constituents and are servants to the people (not the other way around). There are many who are upset with candidates running on political platforms and doing the opposite when they are sent to Washington, their campaigns are a lie and they'll do anything to get that seat of power they are campaigning for. So I ask this question, should we be able to hold our elected congressman accountable to their constituents by being able to vote them out of office before their term is over? Should we have some way of removing them from power if they betray their constituents? I know many conservatives who are upset with RINOs and many Democrats who run on conservative values but betray them when they win the election. I don't know of any liberals who were sent to congress and betrayed liberal constituents (although I am sure there are some). Essentially, we see more and more loyalty to party ties and less and less loyalty to the people and the constitution. I believe we should have something in place to keep the congressman accountable to the people and not to their party. However, what method we should use I am unsure of. What do you all think?
Click to expand...

Yes, we should be allowed to hold a popular vote whenever we want and recall them

I support that option as long as it is a certain percentage of registered voters who voted during the last election. For example if 200,000 registered voters participated(regardless of how they voted) in the last election then like 70-80% of that number of registered voters has to participate in the recall election in order for the recall to be valid.This is so that a recall election doesn't happen by a minority of voters.
 
samsmart said:
I don't think so. What you are effectively talking about is a vote of no confidence, which exists primarily in parliamentary forms of government, which holds irregular elections.

While Congress may be unpopular from time to time, it is at least stable. It prevents constituents from voting based on the spurs of the moment. We have elections on a regular basis and have so since our government was formed. I don't want to muck that up.

If constituents are really against an incumbent, they'll vote them out of office in the next election.

Instead, I think all Representatives and Senators should be forced to have an ombudsman who stays at the Congressman's office in their home district or state and serve as a go-between for the Congressman and for the Congressman's constituency. This way, while our Congressmen are away in Washington, D.C., our constituents can maintain their pipeline to their federal representatives.
Click to expand...

If you had a bad employee, would you wait 2-6 years before firing them? If the answer is no then why should tax payers have to wait 2-6 years to fire a bad employee? The tax payers should not have to wait 2-6 years to fire a bad employee. You wouldn't wait 2-6 years to fire a bad baby sitter, lousy gardener, or some other employee who does a shitty job. Why are politicians who are our employees exempt from being fired just like anyone else who does a bad job? Waiting 2-6 years to fire someone is a idiotic notion and will result in more damage being done by that bad employee.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
If you had a bad employee, would you wait 2-6 years before firing them? If the answer is no then why should tax payers have to wait 2-6 years to fire a bad employee? The tax payers should not have to wait 2-6 years to fire a bad employee. You wouldn't wait 2-6 years to fire a bad baby sitter, lousy gardener, or some other employee who does a shitty job. Why are politicians who are our employees exempt from being fired just like anyone else who does a bad job?
Click to expand...

Because an employer may have a contract with that employee.

Because our governmental system was based around the idea of a social contract, the Founding Fathers wrote it that way. Politicians would serve their term and they would be insulated from short-term popular opinion by having a term for a set number of years before being re-elected.

Also, it's not one boss firing an employee. It's a board of directors who are firing that employee.

While a group of people may not like their representatives, only one representative can be chosen for a constituency. Because there are more bosses than there are employees, some of the bosses are going to be pissed off by what the employees do. Set terms also help insulate politicians from this aspect - that politicians are never going to make everyone happy.

I don't mind elements of populism, but I think no confidence votes go way too far. Especially in America, where everyone wants instant gratification despite the reality that not everybody can get it.

How about instead of asking for recalls we implement Instant Run-off Voting so we can get more moderate politicians in office that more voters can agree to?
 
samsmart said:
Because an employer may have a contract with that employee.
Click to expand...

That employee has to do a good job regardless of that contract and can still be fired.

Because our governmental system was based around the idea of a social contract, the Founding Fathers wrote it that way. Politicians would serve their term and they would be insulated from short-term popular opinion by having a term for a set number of years before being re-elected.
Click to expand...

So you would wait 2-6 years before firing a bad employee?

Also, it's not one boss firing an employee. It's a board of directors who are firing that employee.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with that.

While a group of people may not like their representatives, only one representative can be chosen for a constituency.
Click to expand...

If that representative does a bad job he should be fired as soon as possible before he can do anymore damage, not 2-6 years later. If companies operated under your logic that we should wait 2-6 years before firing someone then there would be no businesses or businesses would be doing poorly.

Because there are more bosses than there are employees, some of the bosses are going to be pissed off by what the employees do. Set terms also help insulate politicians from this aspect - that politicians are never going to make everyone happy.

I don't mind elements of populism, but I think no confidence votes go way too far. Especially in America, where everyone wants instant gratification despite the reality that not everybody can get it.
Click to expand...

This isn't about populism and instant gratification this is about firing a bad employee. Our elected officials are no different than any other employee on the planet, if they do a good job they keep their job if they do a ****ty job then they get fired on the spot or days later, not years or possibly over half a decade later. Politicians are employees of the tax payers, why do not understand that fact?
 
jamesrage said:
That employee has to do a good job regardless of that contract and can still be fired.

So you would wait 2-6 years before firing a bad employee?

Nothing wrong with that.

If that representative does a bad job he should be fired as soon as possible before he can do anymore damage, not 2-6 years later. If companies operated under your logic that we should wait 2-6 years before firing someone then there would be no businesses or businesses would be doing poorly.

This isn't about populism and instant gratification this is about firing a bad employee. Our elected officials are no different than any other employee on the planet, if they do a good job they keep their job if they do a ****ty job then they get fired on the spot or days later, not years or possibly over half a decade later. Politicians are employees of the tax payers, why do not understand that fact?
Click to expand...

But what you're not understanding is that there aren't a few employers and large number of employees. Rather, there are a large number of employers and a few number of employees. And the employees aren't going to make all the employers happy all the time. That's just a natural fact. Terms help insulate politicians against this fact. Someone you call a bad employee someone else may call a good employee. You make it sound like a good idea now, but you may think otherwise when congressmen you are for get ousted this way.

Also, in our political climate, partisan politics would call for the recall of EVERY Congressman as constantly as they could. Because everybody is going to hate every Congressman for some stance they take, every side is going to constantly try to recall him so they can get their own Congressman put into office. This will cause in effect very short terms for our government officials and our government won't be able to do anything because the turnover will be too high. There will too much destabilization.

Another thing: you didn't reply to my suggestion that in order to get more moderate politicians we adopt Instant Run-off Voting.
 
digsbe said:
Should the people be allowed to cut short a congressman's term and recall him if his/her district no longer supports them? There are many congressman (the majority in my opinion) that run their campaign on talking points but don't deliver when they are sent to Washington. Congressman are supposed to represent their constituents and are servants to the people (not the other way around). There are many who are upset with candidates running on political platforms and doing the opposite when they are sent to Washington, their campaigns are a lie and they'll do anything to get that seat of power they are campaigning for. So I ask this question, should we be able to hold our elected congressman accountable to their constituents by being able to vote them out of office before their term is over? Should we have some way of removing them from power if they betray their constituents? I know many conservatives who are upset with RINOs and many Democrats who run on conservative values but betray them when they win the election. I don't know of any liberals who were sent to congress and betrayed liberal constituents (although I am sure there are some). Essentially, we see more and more loyalty to party ties and less and less loyalty to the people and the constitution. I believe we should have something in place to keep the congressman accountable to the people and not to their party. However, what method we should use I am unsure of. What do you all think?
Click to expand...

If you are speaking about your representative, this is a silly idea. They are elected for only two years. That is a highly accountable term. We have enough government waste without wasting more on recall elections.

I'm sorry your congressman supported health care. Although it was the right thing to do, the right thing for you do to now, if you need, is to vote for the other guy.
 
Last edited:
samsmart said:
But what you're not understanding is that there aren't a few employers and large number of employees. Rather, there are a large number of employers and a few number of employees.
Click to expand...

That is totally irrelevant.

And the employees aren't going to make all the employers happy all the time. That's just a natural fact.
Click to expand...

Then require that a recall election have the participation of a certain amount of registered voters. If most of the voters think the politician is doing a bad job then they should be able to fire that politician. You wouldn't keep employing a crappy gardener for 2-6 years just before firing him,that is too much time for him to further damage things.


Terms help insulate politicians against this fact. Someone you call a bad employee someone else may call a good employee.
Click to expand...

If a enough people think that politician is doing a good job then that politician's job is safe, so there is no problem.


You make it sound like a good idea now, but you may think otherwise when congressmen you are for get ousted this way.
Click to expand...

If enough people like me think the politician is doing a good job then that politician's job is safe.

Also, in our political climate, partisan politics would call for the recall of EVERY Congressman as constantly as they could. Because everybody is going to hate every Congressman for some stance they take, every side is going to constantly try to recall him so they can get their own Congressman put into office. This will cause in effect very short terms for our government officials and our government won't be able to do anything because the turnover will be too high. There will too much destabilization.
Click to expand...

Usually with recalls there are some rules like no one outside the district pushing for the recall, there is also a petition process as well that requires a certain number of signatures and most of these do require that a certain percentage of registered voters participate.
 
upsideguy said:
If you are speaking about your representative, this is a silly idea. They are elected for only two years. That is a highly accountable term. We have enough government waste without wasting more on recall elections.

I'm sorry your congressman supported health care. Although it was the right thing to do, the right thing for you do to now, if you need, is to vote for the other guy.
Click to expand...

Why was it the right thing to do for him to vote for the healthcare bill when his constituents didn't want it? He is a retiring Democrat and doesn't care what we think. Corruption and a blatant smack to the face of the American people must be avoided. They all need to remember who gave them power and they should be accountable to them, not to party ties and bribes/sweet deals.
 
digsbe said:
Why was it the right thing to do for him to vote for the healthcare bill when his constituents didn't want it? He is a retiring Democrat and doesn't care what we think. Corruption and a blatant smack to the face of the American people must be avoided. They all need to remember who gave them power and they should be accountable to them, not to party ties and bribes/sweet deals.
Click to expand...

A politician is not obligated to vote based on polls, and should not be.
 
Redress said:
A politician is not obligated to vote based on polls, and should not be.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If we're going to be constantly recalling politicians because they are unpopular within their term, what's the point in having politicians in the first place? May as well make federal laws through direct democracy.
 
Should we be allowed to recall congressman?

No, it's a simple rule: direct democracy undermines and destroys representative democracy.

If a representative can be removed for purely exercising his judgment without any malfeasance on his part, then, we don't really need representatives, we need automatons.
 
Last edited:
digsbe said:
Why was it the right thing to do for him to vote for the healthcare bill when his constituents didn't want it? He is a retiring Democrat and doesn't care what we think. Corruption and a blatant smack to the face of the American people must be avoided. They all need to remember who gave them power and they should be accountable to them, not to party ties and bribes/sweet deals.
Click to expand...

Well since his constiuents already voted him into office, too bad.

Still, however, I do like the idea of recalling a Senator when he/she starts to mess up real bad. I think the fact that the people reserve the right to do so will automatically have our Senators acting better.

And introducing some term limits wouldn't hurt either, if that could ever pass that is.
 
No. If you vote for a bad congressman you are stuck with him for the time you vote him into office.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom