San Lumen wrote:Salandriagado wrote:
Because it lets you get rid of people who are blatantly failing to do what you elected them to do.
If this is the case, then (a) it should be done by someone who isn't elected (or at least, who isn't able to run for election at any point in the future), because elected officials are unavoidably and permanently incapable of doing so, with or without recall petitions; and (b) it should have consequences, so that people don't do it without good reason.
Just for reference, this is the only anti-democratic thing that's been said in this discussion: it's nothing more or less than a direct denial of the central concept of democracy. That's not a bad thing, necessarily, but you really shouldn't be going around using "anti-democratic" as an insult while also disagreeing with democracy as a concept.
It’s not always possible to get exactly what you want or what you want done. People don’t always agree.
It’s not un Democratic it’s the truth.
The core thesis of democracy is that what is popular is what should be done.











