The Instigator
TheHitchslap
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
Logan94
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The People Ought to Have the Ability to Recall Elections

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
TheHitchslap
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/20/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,326 times Debate No: 35638
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

TheHitchslap

Pro

"A recall election is a form of direct democracy in which citizens are able to cut short the term of an elected representative through a public vote. Particular mechanisms vary, but usually involve a petition signed by members of the public. If a sufficient proportion of the electorate signs the petition the recall process is triggered and a special election is called to decide whether the representative concerned should be removed from office."

Standard DDO Code of Conduct applies.


Logan94

Con

I accept and look forward to this debate
Debate Round No. 1
TheHitchslap

Pro


“I am Aristotle, and I approve of Recall Elections!”



Indeed, a recall election as described above is not a new political and democratic tool, it has been around since Aristotle’s Constitution of Athens in which he notes the story of the laws of Solon. [http://classics.mit.edu...]



Creates a More Accountable Government.



As it stands right now, only having an election every 4 years does not prevent a president, or any other federally elected official for that matter to be prevented from doing harm to the economy and/or country. By the time the election comes up, the politician in question has had enough time to recover from a scandal and the people may have forgotten it, giving the nasty politician the ability to continue his reign.



This would be a huge reprimand to a politician should he or she get engulfed in a scandal. In fact, in the US political system, only politicians based on the representation of their people may impeach a president. This current system is under the mercy of partisan hackery, and instead should be given to a more objective audience (the people) to judge the merits of a sitting elected official. It would take the political interest of a competing party (obviously hoping for the impeachment for example and will try to seize power for powers sake) out of the equation.



Closer Representation of the People and Their Ideologies



By enabling recall elections, the people can show what actions they find tasteful and distasteful by removing or keeping said politician in power.



We Already Do This At Voting Booths:



Should someone be upset, within 4 years, the person may voice their displeasure with a vote for someone else instead of the previous elected official. This would cut down the waiting time for that displeasure to be voiced, and allow swift action to take place as a result. We would no longer need protest voting, and get a more accurate picture of who legitimately is the winner in an election (https://en.wikipedia.org... )



This is also allowed in Alaska, Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Rhode Island, and Washington, (http://en.wikipedia.org... )



This Legislation Relies on the Democratic Theory that People Are Good:



To enable this legislation, would further the democratic assumption that people –for the most part-- may be trusted for voting in line with the best interests of himself, and his/her fellows also voting. Furthermore, countries with recall legislation have shown that recall elections are not in fact abused, but used as a tool for the most tyrannical of people in power.



In fact, the whole reason why the US Constitution was founded in the first place was to limit government, and prevent a tyrannical one from taking place. This legislation furthers that idealism, and that goal the founding fathers clearly tried to uphold.



Clearly this is a much needed legislation for any democratic society to be able to function. I say, introduce recall elections!



Thank you!


Logan94

Con

Pro believes that a recall of election is a form of direct democracy, however we in the United States do not have a direct democracy system. Also we have the power to vote the president out of office every four years, representatives every two years, and senators every six years.

The United States is deeply divided on every major issue. If we allowed this every time a state or group did not get there way they would just try to throw out the president. this would lead to very inefficient government that would not be able to get anything done. Politicians would worry more about getting kicked out of office than the issues, they would not want to make anyone angry and loose their jobs. Texas wanted to succeed just because Obama gained a second term. Americans are privileged with the right to vote, a free vote, and a fair vote. This happens on a regular basis and if you have issues with a politician use your power at the polls. Also any major issues will lead to an impeachment or resignation of said official, so the only thing this resolution would do is create an ineffective American system.
This legislation is not needed and will only hurt America
Debate Round No. 2
TheHitchslap

Pro

"Pro believes that a recall of election is a form of direct democracy, however we in the United States do not have a direct democracy system."

There is an issue with this objection with which I have:
- This is a strawman, while it is true we do not have direct democracy in the US, it does not mean we cannot have a form of it. This is not a pure direct democracy, it is simply a function of a democracy period. Other countries (such as Canada, and some States in the US) already have this. Ideally, we want it in the federal government as well!


"Also we have the power to vote the president out of office every four years, representatives every two years, and senators every six years."

-Yes, I did state that our federal representitives last a long time in office; this seems to be more of an argument for recall elections than not, I already noted this, it would keep politicans accountable, because really, only the last year in their political lives matter more than anything, but that leaves said politician ample time to do dammage to the US. Which is why we need recall elections.

"The United States is deeply divided on every major issue. If we allowed this every time a state or group did not get there way they would just try to throw out the president. this would lead to very inefficient government that would not be able to get anything done."

- Recall in my previous argument, that all democracies with this in place have not noticed an abuse of the system of recall elecitons. This is simply a bare assertion fallacy, we are not talking about booting a politican out for every stand on his position as my opponent seems to think, but rather, on a major scandal with which said major politician was involved in!

"Politicians would worry more about getting kicked out of office than the issues, they would not want to make anyone angry and loose their jobs."

- (See above) Also, shouldn't politicians be afraid of their people and not the other way around? Again, this is an argument supporting the notion not against it, it furthers accountability in office.

"Texas wanted to succeed just because Obama gained a second term. Americans are privileged with the right to vote, a free vote, and a fair vote. This happens on a regular basis and if you have issues with a politician use your power at the polls. Also any major issues will lead to an impeachment or resignation of said official, so the only thing this resolution would do is create an ineffective American system.
This legislation is not needed and will only hurt America"

- Firstly, Texas' seperation would be considered unconstitutional, which is a whole other issue entirely. We are not talking about a state trying to seperate from the US, but if a politician ought to be pulle dout of office if the people demand it.
-Secondly, I already noted that certain people specifically vote against a poltiican they do not like, so why not have recall elections to voice their issues with said politician? This is again an argument for recall elections not against it.
-Finally, those processes of impeachment are done on partisan lines. For instance, Clinton was indeed guilty, but didn't get impeached because the 2/3rds necessary to impeach him couldn't have been reached, his own democrats protected him, and I alreadyanswered this. This is a conflict of interest! It should be the people deciding objectively outside partisan lines who they want to represent them, not other politicians!


My opponent has literally done nothing to take down the resolution. The resolution is affirmed, and my opponent affirmed it himself. Thank you! Impose recall elections!
Logan94

Con

1. Yes i did point out that the president gets elected every four years, representatives every 2, and senators every 6. This was not to agree with pros resolution but to show that you can change elections very often. We are lucky to live in a country where we can change our government peacefully. If politicians are bad it is the responsibility of the american people to vote them out on election day. If citizens were given the power to recall elections politicians would be to afraid to do anything because they could get kicked out of office. a total of 675,000 signatures on white-house succeed petitions. This was all in response to Obama being elected a second term. If he ever did anything that the republican party didnt like he would be in constant danger of being kicked out. So, instead Obama, and all other politicians, will learn not to do anything to keep their jobs.

2. Pro says we are not kicking the politician out for every stand he takes, but who is we. Well we in this sentence is the American people and pro can not speak for all of America. Again I point to the petitions to succeed because it shows that Americans want to leave because of an election. if they had the power to recall them it would become a mess. Republicans would recall democratic elections, and democrats would recall republican elections.

3. Yes politicians should be afraid of the people, but politicians will do anything to keep their jobs, including nothing. They wont want to make anyone mad and loose their job. This would make the American political system very ineffective

4. Actually Texas separation would be constitutional because they were a sovereign state before they entered the union. Also these petitions are very important to this debate because it shows that some americans will act just because a certain party is elected. that is not fair to that official.

5. Also not all impeachments are not done along party lines. Richard Nixon resigned before a vote was held and he was going to be impeached by both parties. And Clinton actually was impeached by the house, but was not voted out of office by the senate. You say that him not getting voted out of office was a conflict of interest. 1, a majority of Americans supported Bill Clinton 2. He was not impeached because the charge, perjury, was not relevant to his position as president.

All of the points pro says i made in his favor are wrong.He is trying to twist words and make me sound like i am affirming i am not

This would not help America, Vote Con
Debate Round No. 3
TheHitchslap

Pro

Thanks for the rebuttals:

First, I would like to note my oppoent completely drops my argument pertaining to the politicial theory of recall elections; that Aristotle thought they were essential to democracy, and placed it in the Athens Consitution as a result. Therefore, I ask that the audience notes 1) that indeed it was used in Aincent Greece as a fundamental tool to democracy and that 2) it is in theory an excellent tool used to prevent politicial corruption.

Essentially my opponent argues that having recall elections would be defficent to democracy

-My reply has already been noted, my opponent simply just re-asserts his position with no real new counter. The fact still remains in countries such as the UK, Canada, and at the state level in the US, recall elections are not all that common. My opponent simply commits a reductio ad absurdum here, as by implication he believes the whole political system would be instable as a result, which simply isn't true. Not all systems of government would have this, only those elected. So for example those working in the Supreme Court with tenure wouldn't be affected. And what Texas has to do with this debate is beyond me, as I already noted that is a constitutional issue not a recall election. The texas seperation cannot be decided by a recall election because recalls only pertain to a politican being pulled out of office. That's it! Several US states have used recall elections before and none of their systems are in total chaos as a result, and thus it is absurd to think otherwise. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

My opponent continues on about ... well .. I don't exactly know what ..

- My opponent is aying semantics with me, the fact still remains that recall elections are not used for the poltical stances one takes, but on the illegitimacy of his or her governence should it lack transparency. Again, my opponent completely dropped this point, and furthermore, the secession petitions are again, a constitutional issue, not a recall one. Recall elections are for politicians to be pulled out of office, not if Texas can leave or not.... Furthermore, I already noted again that it simply isn't true that recall elections are abused with examples of the UK, Canada, etc.. because of the way recall elections work. If my opponent would kindly read my source, he would know that indeed, a ceratin amount of signatures in the form of a petition would be needed to start a recall election. Say it's a majority in a state, and the state elected an offical, it doesn't make sense that the majority would vote said politician in, then out in a recall on the basis of partisan lines. Because of the way people vote, assuming it was a win, those who origonally voted for the politician would have to vote against him in the recall, which if he is loyal to party member is mathmatically unlikely. What we are talking about here is should a major problem occur (like a scandal) and partisanship is no longer in the equation, which then the politican should face recall elections.

My opponent asserts the political system is ineffective, and would get worse due to this policy

- But the fact still remains that the political system is already ineffective due to partisanship. We are not allowing peoiple in political parties to decide a politicians career (which would be predicatble and a conflict of interest) but the people and how they view his or her merits instead! This would make it more efficent, not less.

My opponent talks about Texas seperationalism

- This has nothing to do with recall elections. This is a constitutional issue, not an issue faced by a single politican which is what a recall election is concerned with. Why Texas is being brought up is beyond me! In fact there is no relevance here ladies and gentlemen.

My opponent maintains that not all impeachments follow partisanship

- Richard Nixon may be true, however, Clinton was not impeached due to partisanship. In fact if you look at the voting records here:https://en.wikipedia.org... is no doubt that a strong correlation exists between political party, and voting for or against Clinton. Furthermore, if Clinton had the support of the people, then why not allow them to vote instead of the partisan hackery? My opponent completely dropped this point. Why not the people?!

Conclusion:

In his final argument my opponent concerning the impeachment of Clinton supported my argument, he dropped my argument pertaining to Aristotle and how it is essential to democracy as a result, furthermore, he doesn't even counter any of my arguments, he just re-asserts his own again and again dropping my points. There is no abuse of the system, people ought to be able to vote on impeachments not partisans in predictable ways, and recall elections are simply good for democracy!

Thank you for the debate.

Vote Pro Ladies and Gentlemen!
Logan94

Con

The Aristotle argument does not pertain to this day and age. The world has changed since his time and so has the world of politics.

Recall of elections would be very deficient to our system of government. We already have a huge party divide in the United States and people would try to recall elections all the time. This would be terrible, and nothing would get done. I must explain again why i used the Texas example. It shows how much the people react after little or nothing is done. This does pertain to this debate because it is real Americans, taking real action.

Also my opponent added new evidence in the last round, while this is not fair i will still respond.
1. Wikipedia is not a reliable source
2. this would expand to national government and would grind the government to a halt

Please pro dont tell me what the American people would do or if they would go along party lines. Pro is not America and can not tell us what America will do. He can present evidence of trends in other places and apply it here but he has not so he cant say that.

Texas does pertain as i have shown above.

Please read my partisan argument above

I reassert myown because my arguments contradict his and therefore are a rebuttal.

Dont vote for him because he can type latin, read and vote con please
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by MacGruber 4 years ago
MacGruber
There is no major country with a presidency that is a direct democracy.
Posted by Emmo 4 years ago
Emmo
the fact that you have a strong track record makes me very tempted to accept this debate
Posted by Logan94 4 years ago
Logan94
I would like to debate you on this topic but i can not accept, if you would please send me a request to debate it. This is a great topic.
Posted by TheHitchslap 4 years ago
TheHitchslap
Good point .. I'll update it now
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Geographical ambiguity. I am not American, I am British. Therefore, the debate can easily be turned into a local political problem which can be dictated by issues such as practicality or other impact cases which divert the issue away from whether the idea is good-in-itself and towards whether it is applicable.

Moreover, it is very possible that I'll make a serious blunder on US politics, in the same way that you would on UK politics. This again diverts away from the point. There are many situations where instigating recall elections is a bad idea, just like instigating democracy or instigating charity is a bad idea. It doesn't stop it being good-in-itself, or good ceteris paribus. And I believe that's more what you want to be debating, yes? Whether it is a good political idea?
Posted by TheHitchslap 4 years ago
TheHitchslap
Stephen,
what would be the difference as a result of the resolution change?
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
I'll accept it, not support it, bleh.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Change the resolution to "This House Supports The Right to Recall" or "This House Beleives that the people ought to be able to dissolve its parliament" or similar, and I'll support it.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
TheHitchslapLogan94Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is affirming the status quo, so Con needed to present evidence that the current system for having recalls has bad consequences that would be fixed by prohibiting recalls. But Con gave no actual examples of bad consequences and cited no evidence at all. Pro could have done a better job of working examples into his arguments, but his sources supported his claims. Con said the world has changed since Aristotle, but didn't make arguments that the nature of democracy in particular has changed. Con's "i" rather than "I" was annoying, but not bad enough to lose S&G.
Vote Placed by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
TheHitchslapLogan94Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Ultimately I end up voting Pro because Cons major point of contention was that recalls would cause stagnation in the political system due to politicians fearing having a recall called upon them. Pro takes this out by saying that recalls are rare, and Con doesnt offer any evidence in clash. Pro could have made his rebuttal stronger by citing some empirical evidence (like the fact that there have only been three gubernatorial recalls in the past century) but over all Con doesnt have much offense. Pro doesnt have that much either, his only real example of a guilty politician who got off due to impeachment being inadequate was Clinton, one of the greatest recent presidents, but I'll let it slide. Ultimately, in theory if not necessarily in practice I have good reasons to vote Pro, and that outweighs Cons shaky inefficiency impact