CALIFORNIANS: MAY THEY GET WHAT THEY WANT
The recall effort directed against California Gov. Gray Davis is entirely legal. There, I said it. And I'm sure I'll repeat it again several times during the course of this essay. Because every time I say the recall is a bad idea and a waste of money the state doesn't have, someone will inevitably "counter" that it's fully within California law. Which is, of course, neither here nor there. Legal and foolish aren't mutually exclusive, as the existence of the electoral college attests to.

The whole concept of recall gives me mixed feelings. I like the idea of holding politicians accountable. I'm hesitant about it being used by a bunch of sore losers to target the person that beat them. I see elections as a contract. We elect someone giving them the expectation that they will have a specific number of years to do their job. What incentive does a true leader have to take tough decisions early in his term if he knows it might force him out of office before his term is up (by which time the longer-term benefits might kick in). In a regular contract, you can't unilaterally change the terms. But recall allows the public to do exactly that. On a related note, I also don't like elected officials who quit before their term is up because they got a better offer.

Perhaps recall should only be allowed if there is specific misconduct alleged. Perhaps it should be allowed for any reason but only after the official has served at least half his term (it still violates the elections as a contract principle but it's less egregous than the California system). Perhaps California officials should serve for two years like elected officials in many New England states; that creates its own difficulties but addresses the accountability issue. Perhaps recall is simply a well-intentioned, but unworkable idea.

The specifics of the California case are even more farcical. Yes legal, but still farcical. The recall effort is proceeding only 9 months after Californians re-elected Davis with 47% of the vote (a higher percentage than Bill Clinton got in '92 and the same as George W. Bush got in '00, although Davis won a plurality). To annul that victory after only 9 months is highly dubious, even if Gray Davis is one of the least inspiring politicians around. I'd love to be rid of President Bush, say, yesterday, but I'm still glad we don't have national recall.

Some point out that prime ministers have to face votes of confidence, why not governors? The difference is that governors don't have the same powers as prime ministers. In a parliamentary system, the prime minister will almost always have the support of, if not the majority of the legislature, then at least its largest party. In California, both houses of the legislature are majority-controlled by the party in opposition to the governor. In such a setup, a governor can obstruct or he can encourage tweaks the opposition legislature's proposals but he can do very little to drive the agenda. He can do very little constructive on his own. That is the downside of the separation of powers. Or, as others might counter, that is the whole point of the separation of powers.

Ultimately, the farce in California is an excellent example of why America is a republic (indirect democracy), rather than a direct democracy. It is really the fault of the people, far more so than the elected officials. In the late 70s, Californians launched a tax revolt; now, as the result of a voter-initiated law, any tax increase requires a 2/3 vote of the state legislature. But now they're upset that their education system ranks last in the nation. They want their public schools, hospitals and roads to be of high quality but don't want to pay taxes to support those services. This is the paradox any elected official, anywhere, has to face: everyone wants a free lunch. But it's most acute in California. The ease of initiative ties the hands of legislators with unreasonable demands and then recall is the stick used to punish those who don't meet those unreasonable demands.

The Green Party is in favor of initiative and referendum [I/A]. I'm not sure I want them to be too easy. The mess in Albany (New York's state capital) is cited by many advocates as why this state needs I/A. I can barely imagine a state government more closed, more opaque and less accountable than New York's. Everyone knows Albany is a joke, that every major decision involves only the two legislative leaders and the governor: the infamous "three men in a room" decried by the current governor when he was a challenger. But the two parties (each of whom has controlled one house of legislature for years) have done a brilliant job of self-preservation, of manipulating electoral law to ensure lack of accountability. In fact, California's I/A and recall was developed precisely to counter the machine driven politics of the east coast. But it's gone too far to the other extreme.

Perhaps the most ridiculous aspect of the California system is this. Gov. Davis could get far more support than anyone else and still lose the governorship. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that 44% vote to maintain Davis and 56% vote to get rid of him. There will probably be a few hundred candidates trying to replace Davis, the most famous being Schwarzenegger and porn magnate Larry Flynt. Even, in the unlikely event that any one of the hundreds of candidates gets half of the anti-Davis vote, half of 56% is only 28%. In such a situation, that person would become governor. Davis, with 44%, would be evicted from office by someone who got a substantially smaller 28% (if Californians think 28% > 44%, then their schools really are that bad). Even the electoral college couldn't produce a result so farcical.

Again, this would be entirely legal and, as a non-Californian, it doesn't affect me directly. But it would also make California a national and international laughingstock. And since the state seems to be the birthplace of many national trends, for better or worse, I will be watching this vote with interest. The people of California are getting what they want. I hope it satisfies them.