RE: Democracy?

["Lynn Hauka" <lynn@evening-star.com>]

Hi all,

After lurking for weeks, I'd like to jump in with - I hope, anyway - some
food for thought.

I live in Canada and have for nine of my 41 years but was born and raised in
the US. Still a citizen.

The differences between the two political systems, and the differences in
how politics is regarded and participated in betweeen the two countries, are
fascinating.

Roy, in Canada a politician at provincial (= to state) or federal level can
be recalled by his or her constituents. (I don't know about municipal for
sure, though I think so.) This was a new concept to me - just hadn't paid it
that much attention before. I like the idea of the accountability, but
perhaps inevitably what's happened is that a politician's foes will
sometimes mount a recall campaign on the flimsiest grounds. In some
instances the threat of recall has become like yet another stick to use to
try to keep a politician in line when really, no harm has been done and he
or she is representing the majority of consituents well, but the disgruntled
minority abuse the process to try to accomplish their end when they lost at
the voting booth.

I don't know that this same scenario has occurred in states that have
recall, although my guess would be that it has. I also don't know if there
are big differences in the recall processes so that perhaps abuse would be
less likely.

It seems to me that without a will to work within the democratic system -
not blindly, not with slavish obedience, but with thoughtful adherence and
some well-thought-out fine tuning when necessary - that all the fixes in the
world will not help. Democracy is for the people, plural, not the person,
singular. A "me first at all costs and screw the rest" behavior is
fundamentally at odds with the notion of democracy.

Cheers,
Lynn

> -----Original Message-----
> From: noprivacy@essential.org [mailto:noprivacy@essential.org]On Behalf
> Of Hegge, Roy
> Sent: Friday, February 05, 1999 10:19 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list NOPRIVACY
> Subject: RE: Democracy?
>
>
> Sure Greg, I am aware of the protections built into our system
> for the minor opinion.   I certainly am not advocating
> that we eliminate that.  In fact, much of that is written into
> our Constitution and I am a very strong supporter of
> constitutional rights.   I would not go to the extreme of mob
> rule.   But I would like to see more direct accountability
> for an elected representative to his/her constituents.
>
>    For example, in Wisconsin (last year I believe it was), they
> had a vote on a new stadium.   It was a contested issue
> and public opinion was pretty much against using tax dollars to
> support it.  It was a very close vote in their legislature
> and the deciding vote was cast by a representative from northern
> Wisconsin who had run on an anti-stadium platform.
> His vote was in direct violation of the will of the people that
> had put him into office to represent them.   Wisconsin does
> have recall, and this particular community was unified enough to
> recall their elected official and boot him out because
> he no longer represented them.    If this same scenario happens
> in Minnesota, we have no recourse but to wait out the
> official's term and hope that the citizens remember.   The same
> is true of our federal officials.   I would have liked to
> have seen a recall initiative for Congressman Ramstad after he
> voted on the articles of impeachment.
>
> This accountability does not mean mob rule.   We still must
> respect the laws of the land which protect all citizens,
> majority or minority.  But it would create a government more in
> tune with the populace.  Again, look at the opinion
> polls across the nation and then look at the actions of Congress.
>  They are way out of step.  Recall might make
> our officials stick to business more and play political partisanship less.
>
> As for my other suggestions,  referendum, open sessions, and
> better access to proposed bills and modifications,
> these too would make government more accessible and accountable
> to the public.
>
> Roy