The recall - the means of constituents to force the resignation of their elected representative - sounds good and democratic But under he existing system it is merely means for an enraged minority of voters to force their power on the majority.
Under a system where a representative can be and usually is elected with a minority of the votes in the district, see bottom of page, there is no idea given to having a majority of voters elect a representative.
Under recall as well, there is no idea given that only a majority should be able to force recall of the person elected.
Under recall legislation of the past -- yes of the past. this idea is not new at all - 16 or 20 percent was often the required amount to recall someone.
Thus a small percentage of say 20 percent could force the recall of someone elected with a third - or even a majority of the vote. This is not democratic.
An enraged bitter core of people thus subverts democracy.
And the history of recall sees this again and again.
When Aberhart was elected, and clamped down on the burning off of Alberta's natural gas, which in addition to the waste of our country's resources was polluting the air in his constituency outside Calgary. The employees of oil companies, many of them foreign and uncaring of the waste, got up a recall campaign. The CCF also contributed as they objected to the result of the election. Aberhart's government retroactively cancelled the legislation and the attempt came to naught
1911 recall of J.H. Graham, mayor of Wichita, Kansas. Prohibitionist, he fell afoul of local liquor peddling faction and the local newspaper.
1921 recall of Lynn Frazier, governor of North Dakota. He brought in program of state-owned industries. The private business community objected and successfully recalled him.
73,000 signed the petition for his recall.
The previous year 117,000 voters had elected him.
After this recall he ran for his position again and in a tight two-way race he was edged out of his post, losing by 2 percent of the vote, by only 4000 votes.
1913 recall of California state senator James Owens. Labour unions sought his recall when he did not fulfill his promise of pro-labour legislation. This was called "a test of the recall's effectiveness of an unfaithful legislator" - a test that it failed - he was easily maintained in his position.
More frequent elections - frequent and wholesale recall - are more effective at ensuring accountability. But at least at city level in Alberta terms of service have been extended. We had annual elections then in 1950s this was lengthened to extended to elections each second year then to three year terms in 1960s, then recently to four-year terms. Where's the accountability?
Recall works best for the wealthy who have free time amd/or those who have deep self-serving interests in the outcome, i.e. those who want to keep our business competition, get lower taxes, etc.
Work a day families who get little direct easily-seen benefit out of any reform or any easily-seen harm out of lack of competition and lack of socio-economic progress do not have time, energy or interest in initiating such a campaign.
See these blogs for info on
how many elected representatives are elected with minority of the vote in their districts:
more than half in 2018 Ontario election see June 28, 2019 blog
almost two-thirds in 2019 federal election see Feb. 5, 2020 blog
seven of 12 Edmonton councillors in 2017 see Jan 10, 2020 blog
Comments